Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-18-2019, 09:03 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Kids being treated differently starts from birth; kids behaving differently doesn't start until age 3-4 except for a very narrow list of things (in general baby boys are interested in loud noises while girls dislike them), a list which is much narrower than the list of ways in which grown-ups treat those same kids differently.

And if "girls aren't into math" isn't cultural, why does it vary across cultures? In Spain, we already have more STEM fields with equalish numbers of male and female students than not; when there is one that's got more of one side, there is a similar-in-goals degree which has more of the other. An example where you can easily link it to media: Programación (professional: Programmer) gets mostly men, but Ingeniería de Telecomunicaciones (professional: Telecommunications Engineer) gets mostly women. The first one is often portrayed in media, and 99.999% of the time the Programmer is male (thank you, Marvel's Agents of SHIELD); the second one isn't portrayed in media, so it's where female students who are interested in computers go, as nobody is telling them that "Telecos are guys".
Ok, so it's partly cultural. I've already conceded such. I'm pretty sure it's nature and nurture which will effect each individual to varying degrees and also influence each scenario with greater or less influence.
Still, you have "some" fields with equalish numbers.....


Idk about 99.999....as someone who rarely watches TV and just off the top of my head
Hackers, warehouse 13, and at least one of those law enforcement shows have featured female programmers.

Last edited by Littleman; 01-18-2019 at 09:07 PM.
  #152  
Old 01-18-2019, 09:06 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,366
SOME no, MORE THAN NOT.

Put it in caps since apparently you have literacy troubles. Oh wait, that's one thing boys are bad at, right?
  #153  
Old 01-18-2019, 09:13 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Hell I could see just the word communication in the title drawing more women. As a cultural thing, since it's commonly accepted that women are generally better with communication. Thus " hey communication, I'd be good at that"

Though it circles around again, since women being better with communication is pretty well proven to be biological.
  #154  
Old 01-18-2019, 09:19 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
SOME no, MORE THAN NOT.

Put it in caps since apparently you have literacy troubles. Oh wait, that's one thing boys are bad at, right?
I was trying not to simply correct you but....

According to this, Spains women in Stem fields is squarely at a whole 17 percent.

http://mindthegapproject.eu

guess your analytical thinking let you down in equating this to 50 percent.
  #155  
Old 01-18-2019, 10:20 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava
In Spain, we already have more STEM fields with equalish numbers of male and female students than not
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
I was trying not to simply correct you but....

According to this, Spains women in Stem fields is squarely at a whole 17 percent.

http://mindthegapproject.eu
It's a good thing you weren't trying to correct Nava, because nothing in your cite refutes what Nava said.

Your claim that Spain's total STEM employment is (according to your cite) only about 17% women does not contradict Nava's claim that among the different STEM fields in Spain, there are more fields with approximately equal numbers of male and female students than fields with strongly skewed ratios of male and female students.

I can't personally verify whether either of those statements is true, but where you made your error was in assuming that they're necessarily contradictory. They're not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman
guess your analytical thinking let you down in equating this to 50 percent.
Actually, it appears to be your communication skills that let you down in not correctly parsing what Nava clearly said.

And while I have your attention...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman
Women, children, elderly.... Most men are far more apt to help them then another man.
It may be just your faulty communication skills again, but you realize that your statement is excluding "elderly" people from the category "man", right? Are you really trying to make the argument that elderly men don't count as men?

Likewise, are all you middle-aged and elderly posters who argue for the claim of physical strength being an intrinsically "masculine" trait acknowledging that your masculinity is lessening as you get older and weaker?

Personally, I think that since linking masculinity with physical strength implies that older men are automatically, on average, less masculine, that casts some doubt on the claim that this is a "non-toxic" way to characterize masculinity.

ISTM that no definition of "masculinity" or "femininity" that assumes that older people lose that characteristic merely by virtue of their age can really be considered "non-toxic".

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-18-2019 at 10:21 PM.
  #156  
Old 01-19-2019, 01:17 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
It's a good thing you weren't trying to correct Nava, because nothing in your cite refutes what Nava said.

Your claim that Spain's total STEM employment is (according to your cite) only about 17% women does not contradict Nava's claim that among the different STEM fields in Spain, there are more fields with approximately equal numbers of male and female students than fields with strongly skewed ratios of male and female students.

I can't personally verify whether either of those statements is true, but where you made your error was in assuming that they're necessarily contradictory. They're not.



Actually, it appears to be your communication skills that let you down in not correctly parsing what Nava clearly said.

And while I have your attention...



It may be just your faulty communication skills again, but you realize that your statement is excluding "elderly" people from the category "man", right? Are you really trying to make the argument that elderly men don't count as men?

Likewise, are all you middle-aged and elderly posters who argue for the claim of physical strength being an intrinsically "masculine" trait acknowledging that your masculinity is lessening as you get older and weaker?

Personally, I think that since linking masculinity with physical strength implies that older men are automatically, on average, less masculine, that casts some doubt on the claim that this is a "non-toxic" way to characterize masculinity.

ISTM that no definition of "masculinity" or "femininity" that assumes that older people lose that characteristic merely by virtue of their age can really be considered "non-toxic".
She very clearly was trying to correct my statement of SOME fields with roughly equal numbers. Replacing that with more, which would tell us the comparative basis of MORE is STEM fields as a whole. Not more than somewhere else.
Especially if stated as more than not.

So yes if out of all Spains STEM fields , more of them have roughly equal numbers of women , then 17percent as a whole is in conflict, unless all the fields with more men also have vastly greater numbers in those fields.

Even the referenced Telecom engineering field only boasts a 26 percent female enrollment rate at universities in Spain.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier ... - UNED
PDFportal.uned.es › pls › portal › url › ITEM

So I'd welcome a reference of any STEM field showing even close to 50 percent female enrollment.

And yes as men age testosterone declines, along with quite a lot of "masculine" traits. Including physical strength and aggression

Last edited by Littleman; 01-19-2019 at 01:22 AM.
  #157  
Old 01-19-2019, 01:26 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
I'm already on that decline , thank goodness, in a society where all masculine traits are villainized or deemed worthless apparently.
  #158  
Old 01-19-2019, 01:37 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
This is compounded even further by the 54 percent female enrollment rate at University. So despite greater numbers of University enrollment as a whole.
  #159  
Old 01-19-2019, 02:17 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
This whole conversation reminds me if an experience.

I was at the docks walking when a woman approached me asking for help.
Her father was stuck in the engine bay of her boat. The bay was some 6 feet deep and her father was knelt down with one leg wedged slightly between the engine and the wall unable to stand or get out. All the while she was explaining to me how she was perfectly capable of getting him out herself but he wouldn't let her.

The task involved lifting a 200 pound man who's legs were asleep from 3 feet below level. Then holding him up long enough for him to start supporting his own weight so he could stand, regain circulation and eventually climb out.

There was no way she could have done it.

Now, who's toxic in this situation.

The woman who delayed her father's "rescue by arguing with him for ten minutes that she could do something she could not do. Who refused to even say thanks because she was too concerned with convincing me she could have done it.

The man who refused his daughters help, knowing she was not capable and was more likely to also injure herself.

Or me for accepting the task, doing it , and all the while just saying I understand ok , no problem to all that was said.
?


Also , is it toxic when I lift my wheelchair bound friend into the beach wheelchair to go hang out on the beach? Does this make him less of a man? Is he displaying his masculine traits by allowing this?
Idk, I don't care, he's not capable of it himself and I am capable of helping. Do his female friends have the impulse....no, although they do empathize. Could two of them do the same task? Probably so, but they don't. They do empathize though.
  #160  
Old 01-19-2019, 02:31 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
I'm already on that decline , thank goodness, in a society where all masculine traits are villainized or deemed worthless apparently.
This thread is evidence that that is not true. Lots of people still have many positive connotations for masculinity in general.

Quote:
Now, who's toxic in this situation.

The woman who delayed her father's "rescue by arguing with him for ten minutes that she could do something she could not do. Who refused to even say thanks because she was too concerned with convincing me she could have done it.

The man who refused his daughters help, knowing she was not capable and was more likely to also injure herself.

Or me for accepting the task, doing it , and all the while just saying I understand ok , no problem to all that was said.
?
You could switch anyone's gender in this anecdote and it would make as much or as little sense. Yeah sometimes people are too proud. Not sure what that has to do with masculinity.
And do you think when people talk about "toxic masculinity" they are including things like the observation that men are on average physically significantly stronger? Because that obvious fact has nothing to do with it at all.

Quote:
Also, is it toxic when I lift my wheelchair bound friend into the beach wheelchair to go hang out on the beach? Does this make him less of a man? Is he displaying his masculine traits by allowing this?
Again I think you have a strange idea of masculinity here.
Needing help is in some way "anti-masculine"? Am I less of a man if I allow my doctor to do my appendectomy?

Last edited by Mijin; 01-19-2019 at 02:33 AM.
  #161  
Old 01-19-2019, 02:50 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,366
Apologies, I was unclear: I was talking about numbers of students in college (my cites are in Spanish and I can't find them, I should'a bookmarked them...). Factors that lead to choosing a major and factors that lead to actually being employed in a field or another are different; also, many fields of employment which have lots of STEM graduates do not have a corresponding field of study. For example, my own current employment field of Business Management Consulting has Physics, Math and Enginering graduates up the wazoo, but it's not itself considered a STEM field and it doesn't correspond to any particular diplomas; despite its name, we get more Economists than Business School graduates.

Take into account that some of those STEM fields weren't even open to women within our own lifetimes. The oldest female Chemical Engineers were part of the group that started college in 1980; graduation dates 1989 and 1990. I started college in what was back then the country's only ChemE school in 1986, and my incoming group of 120 had 61 women to 59 men (the previous year had been 59:61); my school has stayed on the "random variations around 50%" since. There aren't any women over 56 working in ChemE because there are no female ChemEs over 56: other engineering fields were slower to gear up, mainly for the same reason we got so many female students so quickly (family pressure from parents who didn't think "engineering" was feminine but were happy enough with their daughters going into something "chemical").



* Our old Ingenierías Superiores were 5 'grades' of course and labwork, which you had to pass in their entirety, followed by a research or design project which was supposed to take two years. You could not start your project until you'd cleaned up all coursework. At 9 years, we were actually the fastest engineering school in the country (per a newspaper article published the second year I was in college).
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 01-19-2019 at 02:53 AM.
  #162  
Old 01-19-2019, 05:26 AM
nate nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 826
Men are, in general, physically stronger and mentally more curious than women. I don't understand why this is controversial.

Whether we like it or not, we are living in a man's world. I don't know if that can or will, for the next 10,000 generations, change.

The best advice I can give for women who are determined to flip the script is to make new and grow economies that favor your advantages over men. Otherwise, you're just playing inside a game that you'll never "win", or just accept that yeah, men and woman may be different from each other.
  #163  
Old 01-19-2019, 06:22 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Men are, in general, physically stronger and mentally more curious than women. I don't understand why this is controversial.
Because the second part of that is bullshit?

Quote:
Whether we like it or not, we are living in a man's world. I don't know if that can or will, for the next 10,000 generations, change.
Once upon a time men doubted that women could even *do* jobs like doctor, scientist, engineer etc.
Now everyone accepts that was nonsense, but still some people like to say "Look -- there are still more men doing this or that job", or more prominent men or whatever. But of course there is. Equality of opportunity does not mean that overnight both genders are going to have equal results.
Given how long society has oppressed women, the rate at which society is moving to equality of results is really remarkable. In the meantime though, I am not sure what "man's world" means at this point.

Quote:
The best advice I can give for women who are determined to flip the script is to make new and grow economies that favor your advantages over men. Otherwise, you're just playing inside a game that you'll never "win", or just accept that yeah, men and woman may be different from each other.
Accepting men and women are different is very different from holding a belief that men are better suited to functioning in existing economies. And I am not sure what "game" you are talking about winning.

Last edited by Mijin; 01-19-2019 at 06:23 AM.
  #164  
Old 01-19-2019, 07:09 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
All the while she was explaining to me how she was perfectly capable of getting him out herself but he wouldn't let her.

The task involved lifting a 200 pound man who's legs were asleep from 3 feet below level. Then holding him up long enough for him to start supporting his own weight so he could stand, regain circulation and eventually climb out.

There was no way she could have done it.

Now, who's toxic in this situation.
Nobody's denying that there are many idiots in the world, both male and female, who believe that they're stronger (or smarter, or nicer, or whatever) than they actually are. In fact, there are probably many more men than women who get their egos invested in insisting that they're physically capable of doing something they're not capable of. That's a toxic attitude whether it's a man or a woman exhibiting it.

And of course, nobody's claiming that there's anything toxic about the mere fact of anyone, man or woman, having physical strength and using it to help other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman
Also , is it toxic when I lift my wheelchair bound friend into the beach wheelchair to go hang out on the beach? Does this make him less of a man?
Well, you're the one who's asserting that men lose masculinity as they age and get weaker. So according to your criteria, your wheelchair-bound friend is less of a man than you are because he's physically weaker, and you are highlighting his lack of masculinity by using your strength to help him.

Personally, I don't buy that reasoning because I think it's a toxic attitude. But that's where your characterization of masculinity ends up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman
Do his female friends have the impulse....no, although they do empathize. Could two of them do the same task? Probably so, but they don't.
That's a classic example of toxic femininity, where women refrain from or shirk doing things that they're perfectly capable of because they think it will look "unladylike", or that a man will be humiliated by their doing something he can't, or that simply because they're women they ought not to be expected ever to use physical strength.

Toxic femininity and toxic masculinity are two sides of the same coin.
  #165  
Old 01-19-2019, 07:13 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
So yes if out of all Spains STEM fields , more of them have roughly equal numbers of women , then 17percent as a whole is in conflict, unless all the fields with more men also have vastly greater numbers in those fields.
As confirmed by Nava's subsequent post, the numbers are not in fact in conflict, because you were mistakenly comflating employment with enrollment. Just as I said.
  #166  
Old 01-19-2019, 10:19 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So you take responsibility just to prove something to yourself, and not to benefit others?
No.
Quote:
Do you feel diminished, less masculine, when you are forced to ask for help?
No.

Glad I could clear that up.

Regards,
Shodan
  #167  
Old 01-19-2019, 01:22 PM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Kids being treated differently starts from birth; kids behaving differently doesn't start until age 3-4 except for a very narrow list of things (in general baby boys are interested in loud noises while girls dislike them), a list which is much narrower than the list of ways in which grown-ups treat those same kids differently.
This is completely, totally, utterly untrue. I am amazed that someone would make such a claim when the scientific evidence on this matter has been widely known for decades. Try reading the book Child Alive, Roger Lewin ed. which was written in 1975, summarizing then-current research on infant development. There are multiple chapters on sex differences between male and female babies. To note just a few of the many points that were already known more than 40 years ago about average differences between boys and girls:
  • Girls sit at an earlier age.
  • Girls crawl at an earlier age.
  • Girls walk at an earlier age.
  • Girls talk at an earlier age.
  • Girls do many other intellectual tasks at an earlier age.
  • Girls have lower touch and pain thresholds.
  • Girls have better sense of smell.
  • Girls are better at sound discrimination and localization.
  • Boys have superior visual and spacial abilities.
  • Boys are more active and energetic.
  • Girls are more person-oriented; boys are more thing-oriented.
  • Girls are more aware of subtle differences in emotional and social situations.
  • Boys are more exploratory.
  • Boys are more aggressive, physically and verbally.
  • Boys are more competitive and assertive.
  • The sexes differ in toy preferences.
  • Boys are more vulnerable to a large variety and physical and mental disorders.
  • Boys have greater phenotypic variety across a huge number of a characteristics.

All of this is true before the third birthday, and much of it before the first. Do you think this is a very narrow list?

I would note that the authors of these essays are well aware of the nature vs. nurture debate. They completely reject the idea that "sex differences are the result of society's attempt to perpetuate sex stereotypes". Among the evidence:
  • Most of the sex differences listed above are evidence among the young of other primate species. Therefore they can't be the result of human social constructs.
  • As noted, these sex differences manifest early. The research does not support your claim that "Kids being treated differently starts from birth". Parental treatment of boy and girls is quite similar in the first year.
  • All the traits listed above hold true across all human societies, past and present, that have even been studied.
  • Boys with certain conditions exposing them to high levels of female hormones exhibit behaviors shifted from the male norm towards the female norm.

Given all these facts, how can anyone say "kids behaving differently doesn't start until age 3-4 except for a very narrow list of things". Can you name any research scientist who's studied the matter and would agree with that statement?
  #168  
Old 01-19-2019, 02:43 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,182
Do people accept that there are traits and characteristics that can be considered "masculine" and "feminine"? Or is the desire to make everyone into androgynous carbon blobs?

Certainly even within the same trait, once can display masculine or feminine versions. For example, football player Eli Manning and Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman are both considered strong and athletic. But one is definitely masculine and the other definitely feminine.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Needing help is in some way "anti-masculine"? Am I less of a man if I allow my doctor to do my appendectomy?
I don't know. When I was growing up, having to go to the hospital for life-saving surgery was pretty "homo".
  #169  
Old 01-19-2019, 04:59 PM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
<snip>

...That's a classic example of toxic femininity, where women refrain from or shirk doing things that they're perfectly capable of because they think it will look "unladylike", or that a man will be humiliated by their doing something he can't, or that simply because they're women they ought not to be expected ever to use physical strength.

Toxic femininity and toxic masculinity are two sides of the same coin.
I don't know that it's a simple coin with two faces. For example, women are actively discouraged to take physical risks from as soon as they can crawl. There's a famous study of teachers on a playground, all of whom insist they treat boys and girls the same, who are all astonished when video footage shows them, universally, "rescuing" girls and encouraging boys. There's a hell of a lot of learned helplessness in women. If every single time you tried to fix a tire or open a jar a guy shoved you aside and did it for you, it isn't that surprising that you never experience what it is like to push through to success with problems like that.
  #170  
Old 01-19-2019, 05:41 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
I don't know that it's a simple coin with two faces. For example, women are actively discouraged to take physical risks from as soon as they can crawl. There's a famous study of teachers on a playground, all of whom insist they treat boys and girls the same, who are all astonished when video footage shows them, universally, "rescuing" girls and encouraging boys. There's a hell of a lot of learned helplessness in women. If every single time you tried to fix a tire or open a jar a guy shoved you aside and did it for you, it isn't that surprising that you never experience what it is like to push through to success with problems like that.
When I think of "toxic masculinity", I don't think opening pickle jars our of an old fashioned sense of chivalry. I think of frat guys getting drunk and "rapey" or the managing partner at the office acting inappropriately.
  #171  
Old 01-19-2019, 06:07 PM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
I don't know that it's a simple coin with two faces. For example, women are actively discouraged to take physical risks from as soon as they can crawl. There's a famous study of teachers on a playground, all of whom insist they treat boys and girls the same, who are all astonished when video footage shows them, universally, "rescuing" girls and encouraging boys.
Is it possible to get a citation for this study?
  #172  
Old 01-19-2019, 06:14 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
As confirmed by Nava's subsequent post, the numbers are not in fact in conflict, because you were mistakenly comflating employment with enrollment. Just as I said.
Wrong, read the sites. We were both using numbers of enrollment. She just has no factual basis for her claims since enrollment numbers clearly come nowhere near 50 percent.

Last edited by Littleman; 01-19-2019 at 06:16 PM.
  #173  
Old 01-19-2019, 06:23 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Nobody's denying that there are many idiots in the world, both male and female, who believe that they're stronger (or smarter, or nicer, or whatever) than they actually are. In fact, there are probably many more men than women who get their egos invested in insisting that they're physically capable of doing something they're not capable of. That's a toxic attitude whether it's a man or a woman exhibiting it.

And of course, nobody's claiming that there's anything toxic about the mere fact of anyone, man or woman, having physical strength and using it to help other people.


Well, you're the one who's asserting that men lose masculinity as they age and get weaker. So according to your criteria, your wheelchair-bound friend is less of a man than you are because he's physically weaker, and you are highlighting his lack of masculinity by using your strength to help him.

Personally, I don't buy that reasoning because I think it's a toxic attitude. But that's where your characterization of masculinity ends up.



That's a classic example of toxic femininity, where women refrain from or shirk doing things that they're perfectly capable of because they think it will look "unladylike", or that a man will be humiliated by their doing something he can't, or that simply because they're women they ought not to be expected ever to use physical strength.

Toxic femininity and toxic masculinity are two sides of the same coin.
No , you are telling me that somehow having less or less pronounced masculine traits makes someone less of a man.

My friend lacks the ability to display certain masculine traits....not all.

Just as I do not define my being by any of my masculine or feminine traits individually.

The sum of them will affect people's perception of someone and even then, noone has to accept anyone else's perception of which they are.
  #174  
Old 01-19-2019, 06:29 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Apologies, I was unclear: I was talking about numbers of students in college (my cites are in Spanish and I can't find them, I should'a bookmarked them...). Factors that lead to choosing a major and factors that lead to actually being employed in a field or another are different; also, many fields of employment which have lots of STEM graduates do not have a corresponding field of study. For example, my own current employment field of Business Management Consulting has Physics, Math and Enginering graduates up the wazoo, but it's not itself considered a STEM field and it doesn't correspond to any particular diplomas; despite its name, we get more Economists than Business School graduates.

Take into account that some of those STEM fields weren't even open to women within our own lifetimes. The oldest female Chemical Engineers were part of the group that started college in 1980; graduation dates 1989 and 1990. I started college in what was back then the country's only ChemE school in 1986, and my incoming group of 120 had 61 women to 59 men (the previous year had been 59:61); my school has stayed on the "random variations around 50%" since. There aren't any women over 56 working in ChemE because there are no female ChemEs over 56: other engineering fields were slower to gear up, mainly for the same reason we got so many female students so quickly (family pressure from parents who didn't think "engineering" was feminine but were happy enough with their daughters going into something "chemical").



* Our old Ingenierías Superiores were 5 'grades' of course and labwork, which you had to pass in their entirety, followed by a research or design project which was supposed to take two years. You could not start your project until you'd cleaned up all coursework. At 9 years, we were actually the fastest engineering school in the country (per a newspaper article published the second year I was in college).
I was also looking at enrollment and those were the numbers i cited.
If your school actually has those enrollment numbers, it is apparently the exception to the rule. As nationally none of the mentioned fields nor STEM fields as a whole have anywhere near 50 percent female enrollment.

I guess your particular school needs to share what they are doing to get such numbers because throughout the rest of your country and mine there are a multitude of programs trying to increase female enrollment in STEM fields with little success.
  #175  
Old 01-19-2019, 06:34 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Nobody's denying that there are many idiots in the world, both male and female, who believe that they're stronger (or smarter, or nicer, or whatever) than they actually are. In fact, there are probably many more men than women who get their egos invested in insisting that they're physically capable of doing something they're not capable of. That's a toxic attitude whether it's a man or a woman exhibiting it.

And of course, nobody's claiming that there's anything toxic about the mere fact of anyone, man or woman, having physical strength and using it to help other people.


Well, you're the one who's asserting that men lose masculinity as they age and get weaker. So according to your criteria, your wheelchair-bound friend is less of a man than you are because he's physically weaker, and you are highlighting his lack of masculinity by using your strength to help him.

Personally, I don't buy that reasoning because I think it's a toxic attitude. But that's where your characterization of masculinity ends up.



That's a classic example of toxic femininity, where women refrain from or shirk doing things that they're perfectly capable of because they think it will look "unladylike", or that a man will be humiliated by their doing something he can't, or that simply because they're women they ought not to be expected ever to use physical strength.

Toxic femininity and toxic masculinity are two sides of the same coin.
Actually there were a few claims here that using strength to help others was a pretectiom raquet.

Though, ok we probably both recognize this is a somewhat outlandish claim.
  #176  
Old 01-20-2019, 05:35 AM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Is it possible to get a citation for this study?
I will try to find it.
  #177  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:32 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
I was also looking at enrollment and those were the numbers i cited.
If your school actually has those enrollment numbers, it is apparently the exception to the rule. As nationally none of the mentioned fields nor STEM fields as a whole have anywhere near 50 percent female enrollment.

I guess your particular school needs to share what they are doing to get such numbers because throughout the rest of your country and mine there are a multitude of programs trying to increase female enrollment in STEM fields with little success.
Only, that cite? Server not found.

Post a link that works.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #178  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:48 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Mind the gap link works fine for me from three different computers but.....here ya go.

Guess you probably need to use a proxy to get on .eu sites from yours.
Anyhow;
This one specifically shows Telecom engineering enrollment;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...Uq3wtGHFyY8ub8

Or for a little more positive spin....
See table 2 pg105
This one does show about a 40percent enrollment back in 1998 in sciences and math but still down around 20 some percent for engineering( this includes medical fields like nursing and hygiene which I think broadens the numbers over the other sainz study and the mind the gap study)
But shows a 10 percent drop by ten years later and shows numbers roughly equal to the US enrollment rates;

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...jft51yEewkuADG


Or you could simply Google female enrollment stem Spain or any other variation of such.

Last edited by Littleman; 01-20-2019 at 08:51 AM.
  #179  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:03 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
ISTM that opening the fields to women created a big boost of enrollment that steadily declined to match the rest of the world over the years.
  #180  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:27 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
I did find one source saying biomedical is dominated by women in Spain. So it's possible some of these sources are parsing biomedical ( an experimental science) outside of STEM in their data in order to make the numbers look even more dire....

In any case it doesn't seem that Spanish culture differs enough to change female enrollment in these fields by any significant amount compared to the rest of the developed world despite overall enrollment in Spain being female dominated.

If it's mostly cultural as it's claimed then the culture of all developed nation's shares enough of the same traits to give rise to similar enrollment numbers everywhere.
  #181  
Old 01-20-2019, 01:45 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Yep. So puff out your chest, take up more space in the room, deliberately forget to shave, and hock your dip into the nearest spitoon. Then when women aren't interested in you, the only possible explanation is that you aren't manly enough. So you can either admit that you are a pathetic loser who doesn't deserve to live, or you can double down on being even MORE stereotypically manly-er.

And then we get threads asking, "What is toxic masculinity?"
That reminds me of a phenomenon I think I've seen in children (both chronological and mental):

I think all of us, in our early youth, wanted to become friendly or show interest in someone yet we didn't know how to express it skillfully so we pulled her hair or shoved him. At some point, we got a negative feedback so we paused, pulled back, examined our actions and concluded that maybe hair pulling and shoving weren't good ways to get someone's attention and get closer to them. But there was that kid who, when he met with failure after using hair pulling and shoving, concluded that the problem is that he wasn't pulling and shoving hard enough so he doubled down. And when that failed, he doubled down again. I've seen something similar among alcoholics who deal with having a shitty life with drinking and then the drinking makes their lives shittier so they drink more. They double down on digging down.

Is it a case of Dunning-Kruger? Is it because they never learned to pass the marshmallow test? Something else?

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 01-20-2019 at 01:46 PM.
  #182  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:20 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Wrong, read the sites.
I read your cites, and we haven't seen cites for Nava's Spanish sources, so no, you still haven't shown that your claim contradicts Nava's.

We do still know that you're talking about overall gender percentages while she was referring to numbers of fields, though.
  #183  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:59 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,089
B

Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Do people accept that there are traits and characteristics that can be considered "masculine" and "feminine"? Or is the desire to make everyone into androgynous carbon blobs?

Certainly even within the same trait, once can display masculine or feminine versions. For example, football player Eli Manning and Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman are both considered strong and athletic. But one is definitely masculine and the other definitely feminine.


I don't know. When I was growing up, having to go to the hospital for life-saving surgery was pretty "homo".

People are re-examining those traits and characteristics and finding that they're not exclusive to one gender.

For your comparison to work, you really should compare a male gymnast to Eli Manning so you're eliminating the possibility that a female athlete might be considered feminine strictly because she's female. I'd bet money that Danell Leyva is physically stronger than Eli Manning at his peak. (And I'd have picked someone other than a QB.) Is a football player more apt to be considered "masculine" than a gymnast? If so, why? What qualities are we ascribing to masculinity that aren't inherent in being male. And what is maleness anyway?

I don't know where you grew up, but any place where going to the hospital for a life-saving surgery is somehow considered indicative of homosexuality and where homosexuality is viewed as a dread condition must be a pretty terrible place with a high mortality rate, at least for men.
  #184  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:49 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I read your cites, and we haven't seen cites for Nava's Spanish sources, so no, you still haven't shown that your claim contradicts Nava's.

We do still know that you're talking about overall gender percentages while she was referring to numbers of fields, though.
Clearly you didn't, since my cites break enrollment into different fields. Including one specifically for Telecom engineer which Nava claimed to be female dominated in Spain yet it shows a 26 percent female enrollment rate.
Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Regardless they show currently similar enrollment rates in Spain to the rest of the developed world so back to the original point, if it's cultural then the elements of culture that cause it are essentially universal.
  #185  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:02 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
People are re-examining those traits and characteristics and finding that they're not exclusive to one gender.

For your comparison to work, you really should compare a male gymnast to Eli Manning so you're eliminating the possibility that a female athlete might be considered feminine strictly because she's female. I'd bet money that Danell Leyva is physically stronger than Eli Manning at his peak. (And I'd have picked someone other than a QB.) Is a football player more apt to be considered "masculine" than a gymnast? If so, why? What qualities are we ascribing to masculinity that aren't inherent in being male. And what is maleness anyway?

I don't know where you grew up, but any place where going to the hospital for a life-saving surgery is somehow considered indicative of homosexuality and where homosexuality is viewed as a dread condition must be a pretty terrible place with a high mortality rate, at least for men.
I would guess that at least a large portion of people would consider football more masculine. For the simple fact that there are no professional female football players but there are probably more female gymnasts than male.

As far as what quaities ascribed to masulinity that aren't inherent in being male, that answer could be twofold, or more;

One might say none , if it's masculine it's generally inherent in males.

At the same time its very dependant on who you ask, every individual is likely to ascribe certain qualities to masculine that others wouldnt.

I suspect the question you're really asking is what quaities are exclusively male that aren't part of the actual definition of male.
The answer to that is none, there are no human traits outside reproductive mechanisms that
are 100 percent exclusive to either gender.
  #186  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:20 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I read your cites, and we haven't seen cites for Nava's Spanish sources, so no, you still haven't shown that your claim contradicts Nava's.

We do still know that you're talking about overall gender percentages while she was referring to numbers of fields, though.
Oh look new rule for great debates;

If you fail to ever cite facts then you can't be proven wrong so you are by default correct in whatever you feel like stating.
  #187  
Old 01-20-2019, 11:51 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Oh look new rule for great debates;

If you fail to ever cite facts then you can't be proven wrong so you are by default correct in whatever you feel like stating.
Who's claiming that Nava was "by default correct"? My point, which you keep unsuccessfully trying to contradict, is simply that you haven't demonstrated that what she said was incorrect:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
[...] nothing in your cite refutes what Nava said. [...]

I can't personally verify whether either of those statements is true, but where you made your error was in assuming that they're necessarily contradictory. They're not.
You've repeated a number of reasons why you think Nava's claim is unlikely, but that's not the same as demonstrating that it's incorrect.

Likewise, my pointing that out is not the same as asserting that Nava's claim is correct, "by default" or otherwise.

I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping this.
  #188  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:26 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Mind the gap link works fine for me from three different computers but.....here ya go.

Guess you probably need to use a proxy to get on .eu sites from yours.
Anyhow;
This one specifically shows Telecom engineering enrollment;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...Uq3wtGHFyY8ub8

Or for a little more positive spin....
See table 2 pg105
This one does show about a 40percent enrollment back in 1998 in sciences and math but still down around 20 some percent for engineering( this includes medical fields like nursing and hygiene which I think broadens the numbers over the other sainz study and the mind the gap study)
But shows a 10 percent drop by ten years later and shows numbers roughly equal to the US enrollment rates;

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...jft51yEewkuADG


Or you could simply Google female enrollment stem Spain or any other variation of such.
Holy...

Why was I so sure that this would exactly be what the study was about?

It's old data. The numbers I was talking about are this year's.

The data you're talking about is from 20 years ago. That's the generation after mine. The current generation are the children of mine; the children of several million women who, after being told that our sex was no limitation, ran into glass walls and doors and ceilings time and again; of fathers who, having the same degree as their wives, were called to interviews to which she was not... We've shut our mouths and smiled and bidded our time, and with some inglorious exceptions done our best to not only tell our sons and daughters and nieces and nephews and neighbors and students that their sex was no bar to the power of their minds - we have and will continue to make it true.

Just 40 years ago those same numbers you posted would have had the women in double digits for absolute data; single digits for some of the majors.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #189  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:32 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,366
Article in Spanish from 3 years ago interviewing female engineers from the generation which was in school 40 years ago and from the one Littleman posted about. There are already a number of cultural differences between both generations: for example, the first ones had an engineer in the family; the second ones did not. The changes have continued, and will continue.
  #190  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:43 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Take into account that some of those STEM fields weren't even open to women within our own lifetimes.
Same here - my Geology Uni class was more women than men, always. But women couldn't be mine geologists (by far the largest employer) in South Africa till the 90s, because they weren't allowed to work underground.
  #191  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:25 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,366
And btw, I agree that it what I am describing is unlikely. But the Spanish situation has several peculiarities, which boil down to "the effects of 19th century sexism, then of Francoism, and reactions to the last"; making a long story short, women's rights were pushed down during the 19th century, then started rising back and up to higher-than-before levels, then got pushed down to lower than they had been in the Middle Ages, then we've spent the last 40 years doing pull-ups (usually with our own men helping more often than not, even though we still need to work in that too).



A question Littleman asked I'd already answered in my first post, but apparently I wasn't clear enough:
the main reason my school went from zero to 50:50 so quickly is that it's Chemical Engineering. Pretty much every female student in my class who wasn't a legacy had gone through conversations along these lines:

Day X.
Daughter: ... Englineering...
Parents: oh no! That's way too difficult!

Day X+N.
Daughter: ... Chemistry...
Parents: oh yeah, you've got good grades in that.
Daughter: (And in Physics and Draftsmanship, but let's not mention those, right?) So, how about Chemical Engineering? I hear the employability is much better!
Parents: huh. Oh. OK!

We refrained from mentioning that there isn't anything inherently easier about ChemE than, say, Civil or Mech or Electronic. Our parents would have been enormously surprised if we'd pointed out they were being sexist. They weren't being intentionally sexist, they weren't intentionally telling us that we could do anything we wanted to "so long as it was feminine enough". They were the living embodiment of institutional bigotry, in a household and another and another and another... Mine is the generation which shifted from fighting official sexism to the unofficial kind, and we're conscious of it. Our hope is that our children (whether they're male, female, other, old local names, inmigrant, rich, poor, whatever) will be more free to choose than we were. We don't expect or want to see 50:50 in every major of study and field of employment, but we should never forget that there was a time when most nurses were men.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 01-21-2019 at 02:29 AM.
  #192  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:27 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Holy...

Why was I so sure that this would exactly be what the study was about?

It's old data. The numbers I was talking about are this year's.

The data you're talking about is from 20 years ago. That's the generation after mine. The current generation are the children of mine; the children of several million women who, after being told that our sex was no limitation, ran into glass walls and doors and ceilings time and again; of fathers who, having the same degree as their wives, were called to interviews to which she was not... We've shut our mouths and smiled and bidded our time, and with some inglorious exceptions done our best to not only tell our sons and daughters and nieces and nephews and neighbors and students that their sex was no bar to the power of their minds - we have and will continue to make it true.

Just 40 years ago those same numbers you posted would have had the women in double digits for absolute data; single digits for some of the majors.
2007 and 20012 are 20 years ago?

No in fact female enrollment was much higher in 1998 than 2007 and higher in 2007 than 2012.

All I see is a downward trend until 2012 when it levels off with the rest of the world.

And your article doesn't give numbers It just talks about a shift in attitude.

Last edited by Littleman; 01-21-2019 at 07:32 AM.
  #193  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:43 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Spain nationally does not have 50/50 stem enrollment, they have 17 percent.
Despite an apprently better attitude towards women in those fields and a much higher University enrollment overall. According to their ministry of education.
  #194  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:16 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
If anything this indicates that at least in Spain if you want women enrolled in STEM fields , just act like they can't do it and they'll enroll in subjects they aren't interested in just to prove they can. lol
  #195  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
I was under the impression that a large part of the gap in many STEM fields was due to the object-person dynamic - i.e. that women are typically more interested in people, while men are more interested in things.

Okay, that's drastically oversimplifying what the terms mean. Take it away, Scott:

Quote:
It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.

So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals.

Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems).
(My main issue here is that there's actually a link to a meta-analysis here, but the sci-hub link is broken for me. I'd really like to read the study and see if it actually holds up in the way it's implied; I trust Scott not to lie or badly misinterpret papers in his field but I would like to verify it myself.)

So it shouldn't surprise us that less women are interested in STEM fields, any more than it should surprise us that Ob/Gyns or Vets are overwhelmingly women. This is a pretty big psychological difference that starts in very early childhood and persists throughout life. And as the article points out, there's a group of women this doesn't affect: "women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance".

I don't think what Littleman is saying is unreasonable. Except that last post, which is in slightly poor taste.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-21-2019 at 09:34 AM.
  #196  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:23 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I was under the impression that a large part of the gap in many STEM fields was due to the object-person dynamic - i.e. that women are typically more interested in people, while men are more interested in things.

Okay, that's drastically oversimplifying what the terms mean. Take it away, Scott:



(My main issue here is that there's actually a link to a meta-analysis here, but the sci-hub link is broken for me. I'd really like to read the study and see if it actually holds up in the way it's implied; I trust Scott not to lie or badly misinterpret papers in his field but I would like to verify it myself.)

So it shouldn't surprise us that less women are interested in STEM fields, any more than it should surprise us that Ob/Gyns or Vets are overwhelmingly women. This is a pretty big psychological difference that starts in very early childhood and persists throughout life. And as the article points out, there's a group of women this doesn't affect: "women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that gives them a more typically-male hormone balance".

I don't think what Littleman is saying is unreasonable. Except that last post, which is in slightly poor taste.
That was mostly joking. I'm sure there is some other reason that as attitudes toward women in STEM fields got better , actual enrollment dropped off dramatically but I honestly couldn't think of one off the the top of my head.

It doesn't help the argument that it's cultural though.

Last edited by Littleman; 01-21-2019 at 12:24 PM.
  #197  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:47 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Who's claiming that Nava was "by default correct"? My point, which you keep unsuccessfully trying to contradict, is simply that you haven't demonstrated that what she said was incorrect:



You've repeated a number of reasons why you think Nava's claim is unlikely, but that's not the same as demonstrating that it's incorrect.

Likewise, my pointing that out is not the same as asserting that Nava's claim is correct, "by default" or otherwise.

I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping this.
Claim
Telecom engineering is mostly females in Spain.
Fact
Telecom engineering has a female enrollment rate of 26 percent in Spain.

Claim
Majority of stem fields in Spain have roughly equal enrollment.
Facts
Every single cited field has no greater than 27 percent female enrollment
Stem fields as a whole have 17 percent female enrollment.
So yeah not entirely disproven, but you're gonna have to start inventing fields to have the majority of them show equal enrollment. Since the cites cover the majority of them.

Not sure where you're having trouble understanding this.

Or why it's my responsibility to disprove a claim any more thoroughly instead of the claimants responsibility to support it.

Last edited by Littleman; 01-21-2019 at 12:49 PM.
  #198  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:02 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
I would guess that at least a large portion of people would consider football more masculine. For the simple fact that there are no professional female football players but there are probably more female gymnasts than male.

As far as what quaities ascribed to masulinity that aren't inherent in being male, that answer could be twofold, or more;

One might say none , if it's masculine it's generally inherent in males.

At the same time its very dependant on who you ask, every individual is likely to ascribe certain qualities to masculine that others wouldnt.

I suspect the question you're really asking is what quaities are exclusively male that aren't part of the actual definition of male.
The answer to that is none, there are no human traits outside reproductive mechanisms that
are 100 percent exclusive to either gender.
My observation of how "masculine" is defined is that it tends to be circular - things or traits are considered masculine because males tend to aspire to these things or traits because the culture they're in considers the things and traits to be masculine. I would consider your football and gymnast examples to support this theory.

And regarding that "generally inherent in males" business - if one looks at the way these supposedly-inherent traits are laid out, they seem suspiciously aligned with the kind of traits that males consider admirable. Males are stalwart and courageous and independent. Women are indecisive and timid and dependent. Remarkably convenient that males are so inherently awesome and females so inherently worthless, huh? Or alternatively, while males were in a position of social power they marginalized the women and then claimed that all the awesomeness was inherently theirs, and told the women that if they wanted to be proper women they needed to stay in the background and be 'ladylike'.

...Nah, that can't be it. Men are just inherently awesome and women are just inherently damsels in distress.
  #199  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:36 PM
WernhamHogg WernhamHogg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Slough
Posts: 1,098
I think "don't be an asshole," and let people have considerable flexibility otherwise.
  #200  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:59 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Or why it's my responsibility to disprove a claim any more thoroughly instead of the claimants responsibility to support it.
Nobody said it's your responsibility to disprove somebody else's claim, or that any claim should be automatically assumed to be true just because you can't disprove it. But it's your responsibility to refrain from claiming you've disproved somebody else's claim when you haven't.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017