On one hand, I sort of agree with you in that just because a certain group is underrepresented in any given field doesn’t necessarily mean an injustice is occuring. If for some reason women don’t want to go into IT they shouldn’t be made to feel like they should just because it is overwhelmingly male.
But on the other hand, if it seems as if there is a glaring overrepresentation of men in high money-making fields and women seem to be gravitating to less prestitigous, less lucrative occupations, this is where I can see the good in actively encouraging women to go to where the big bucks are. It’s not important for them to try to compete with men just for the sake of competition, but it is important for them to realize that financial success is not just for the boys; that they don’t have to settle for lower-paying jobs just because of their gender and the expectations that come with their gender.
Encouraging an interest in technology among women will perhaps open the eyes of many great minds who otherwise would have never considered IT as a viable career option. Which means instead of getting one more woman who chooses to be a nurse or a teacher because “that’s a women’s job”, we may get one more woman who opts to go into a higher paying, more managerial, more personally fulfilling job.
I think this thread has wandered quite a way off track, as I recall it was about why Girls are outperforming boys and should AA be considered.
I think this all boils down to a lack of Role Models for boys.
Girls are expected to be studious and work hard in school.
Apply these terms to boys and what image do you get you get
GEEK
Boys soon learn to avoid being too good at school … its just not cool.
In the past being intelligent for a Girl was not seen as attractive, so girls held themselves back too, now that this has changed we are starting to see the difference.
I guess I don’t see their being a lack of role models for boys. There are more men on televsion than women. Most of our politicians, scientists, engineers, professionals etc. are still men. Our teachers are predominately female, but haven’t they always been?
I’m wondering if girls are overachieving while boys’ performance has stayed constant, or if boys’ performance has actually dropped while girls’ performance has stayed constant.
I think every individual should be judged by the prospective employer on their own merits. However, (here is where I may catch some flack) the employer should feel free to ask personal questions such as does she plan to remain in the work force for the next 20 years or so, particularly if he has a development plan for his next employee. And by the way , grades do matter, but should not be considered in isolation of other factors.
I always thought you were a guy . That is my previous point. You deserve unhindered consideration because you are prepared to be most valuable to a prospective employer. But allow the employer to access your attitude on this regard. No employer owes a job to anybody.
I hope that it is understood that discrimination based on sex is a no no with me. But if an employer determines that a woman’s priorities are not a full term career, I condone that as a consideration to be given in the selection process.
Any “general” differences that exist because of race/ethnicity, have been clearly established as cultural/environmental and it is in society’s interest to break down these barriers so as to not reinforce them. Sexual differences on the other hand are largely biological and need to be considered. Therefore if women don’t gravitate towards IT, but let’s say nursing, both high paying, we shouldn’t be alarmed.
Look, I grew up with boys who before they could legally drive, had stripped down cars and rebuilt them. I was the odd ball who didn’t have a clue about engines, because I couldn’t care less. Today I see young guys devouring everything they can on computers. Many of the boys are self taught. If they want to progress beyond that with formal education, I assure you they don’t need “male friendly” courses. you with the face,
One of my sisters is a registered nurse who pulls in three times what I make, and my work is in an exlusively male domain, marine repair.
Secondly, I don’t know if you noticed, but in the last 15 years or so, most small new businesses have been started up by women. I can’t give a cite on that. but it certainly is happening in my part of the world. There is no government program that I’m aware of that is encouraging that, but I suspect the banks believe that women entrepreneurs are a good bet.
If IT and hi-tech fields have been predominately male forever, then it doesn’t seem odd to think these fields are already male-friendly, with courses, etc. catered to the way males think and interact with one another. My point is that more women enter the IT industry, we may see courses, etc. that don’t cater to just one way of “thinking and doing”.
IIRC, don’t small business loans and contracts often go preferentially to women and minorities (under AA)? It seems to me that this may explain why we’ve seen a surge in women small business owners.
Don’t worry. I’m not going to give you that much flack.
I know it’s against the law (or maybe just the standard policies of hiring in academia) to ask candidates about their personal lives, and I’m not sure about the ethics behind this. Maybe it stems from the fact that judgements based on someone’s personal life are bound to be wrong? Could it also be because personal life stuff can’t be used to fire someone (usually), so why should it be used to hire someone? For instance, if I tell a prospective employer that I plan to live my life as an ascetic and never marry, never have children, and live and die for the company…and then I turn around a year later and find Mr. Right, could I be fired because they’re afraid I’m not going to be as motivated? And is it justifiable to let a married man with 2 kids off the hook, but view a woman in a similiar situation as a liability? Especially nowadays, when people view marriage more as a partnership than ever? I dunno.
I think employers already try to gauge the motivation of prospective employees. Anyone looking to get hired in this market is going to tell an employer what he/she wants to hear, and if that means sticking with the company for 20+ years, that’s what they will say. I don’t think a woman should be single, childless forever for an employer to think she will be as motivated as a guy. Women might as well stay home if that’s the way we have to compete.
I hope you don’t think I’m arguing with you, grienspace. It’s just that posting is giving me a much needed break from my dissertation. Thanks!
I agree too. However, people say the same things about black people. They say, “Well, if black people don’t want to gravitate towards science or ‘book-learning’, we shouldn’t be alarmed.” Why? Because they excel in sports and entertainment and other areas. They have their “niche”. Instead of citing biological differences, they cite cultural differences. To me, the argument seems to say that it’s alright to have lowered expectations for no other reason than “just cuz that’s how it’s always been”. There’s nothing intrinsic about black people that keeps us from tackling science. And there’s nothing intrinsic about women that keeps us from understanding technology. We may approach it differently from men, but it doesn’t mean we can’t understand it on our own terms.
If it’s alright to have lowered expectations for women when it comes to technology and other fields, why isn’t it alright to have lowered expections for boys in school? After all, the fact that girls are outperforming them indicates that boys and school just don’t match, right? Would you agree with the converse of the statement, “We shouldn’t force women to compete with men”? I don’t think anyone would, and this is what bothers me about that argument.
Okay, I didn’t know you were black either :). And I didn’t know that African- Americans were particularly under represented in science. However “just cuz that’s how it’s always been” isn’t the justification on my part for criticising affirmative action for women or men. For example many new doctors are women and that is a good change resulting from a change in general attitude rather than a specific government program.By the way, we have very few black people living up here in northern Vancouver Island, but one of them is my skin specialist doctor :).
But there is in general . However if you could find the key to motivate me or the vast majority of women every intricacy of the personal computer hardware you could overcome the intrinsic limitation. But why bother? There is enough guys around to handle it.
But I don’t think we should force anyone to compete. I would hope that we would encourage each of us to reach their full potential in what ever field they choose which includes homemaking.
Well I live in British Columbia, and we don’t have AA but we do have targeted programs. I was the beneficiary of such a business start up program myself. (I’m a white male in case you didn’t know).
But if women and men think differently and they ask different kinds of questions, they may fix problems that the other never bothered to ask.
Blacks in the US are underrepresented in just about every field that requires a college degree, but particular in areas of science and medicine. I think the messed up part of this disparity is that it perpetuates itself. Black kids don’t see scientists that look like them but they see plenty of pro-ballers that do, so they decide to practice hoops instead of work on their science project. In the meantime, their parents develop diabetes and cancer because they don’t like going to doctors they can’t identify with. And everyone in the neighborhood is suffering from the toxic dump down the street and they don’t even know it, because no environmental scientists want to venture into the “hood”.
It matters who does science. If you let “them” do the thinking, they may not be thinking about you and your problems.
Which differences are biological and which have been programmed? Not too much time has passed since the days when women were considered inferior to men, and just as it has been with blacks and other racial groups, the residues of long ago prejudices still affect things like gender roles and gender expectations. I don’t think enough time has passed for us to say that occupational gender disparities hinge solely on X chromosome-induced predilections. If society sends a certain message to boys that says “look, you can grow up to be an aerospace engineer, an entertainment exec, or the President of the United States,” while telling girls that they can grow up to be the next supermodel, soccer mom, or secretary, then would it be wise to say that the reason why so many bankers, politicians, and CEOs are male is because women are biologically programmed to avoid those jobs? I don’t think so.
Okay, I believe you. I was just using nursing in a pseudo-hypothetical. But I do believe that the average salary of predominately female occupations is significantly lower than predominately male, whether they be white, blue, or pink collar.
Maybe we’re assuming a problem where there isn’t one. If so, the ‘answer’ to the ‘problem’ isn’t even out there awaiting discovery. Could it be that there really isn’t ‘a problem’ – since merely being “unequal” is not a “problem.” That is, not being born with the genetics of a world-class weight-lifter while others are, is not a ‘problem’ - it’s a fact.
Yet, to not know the cause of a problem and not even look — but instead simply fudge the numbers using AA is silly. To harm the standing of girls while we pretend we are “helping” the group called boys is equally silly. Maybe girls, as a group, are just better readers than boys. Maybe girls, as a group, have different skills sets than boys. If so, maybe the encouragement of girls has exposed the differences, finally. Are boys doing worse than they did 25 or 30 years ago OR are they just doing worse relative to girls? I don’t know – this is an important question however. I will assume there is a ‘cause’ for a REAL decline in the performance of boys, yet, without the understanding of the ‘cause,’ how are we going to fix it? If you show me that a certain boy is given less ‘teacher time’ AND that’s the problem – ok, we give that boy equal ‘teacher time’ — but not more teacher time than a girl when a girl suffers because of that. So, if there is something going on in the classroom, lets address that. But why give a benighted, artificial AA boost to boys at the expense of girls? Where in nature is it stated that the sexes, as groups, are born equal? — clearly we’re not physically and we’re probably not psychologically. Why must there be something amiss when it comes to unequal school talents? Or maybe both sexes ARE equal as a group. What’s the cause than? If boys just aren’t buckling down with the books because they think they’re future NBA super-heros– than mom and dad should step in with a little home school’in (of the old variety). AA certainly isn’t the answer if that’s the problem either–
I don’t really think the problem is one of role models (though that is likely an aggravating factor). Primarily career options are going to be most heavily from socio-economic status. While poor black kids may be more influenced by media images of black entertainers and sports stars (and therefore decide to try and become one) I don’t think that will also be true among middle and upper class blacks. Among middle and upper class blacks there will be a much higher percentage of kids who opt to try to become doctors or engineers even though the number of black professional role models is no different between the two groups. Likewise you don’t find many poor white kids deciding to become bank executives or bond traders even though the vast majority of people in those professions are white. Socio-economic status is key here. The availability of role models (or lack thereof) is IMHO a minor secondary factor all things considered.
Monstro, do you believe that affirmative action is the reason that women now outnumber and outperform men in universities, after being outnumbered themselves for so long?
If so, then simply ending affirmative action for women would solve the problem.
If not, then why would affirmative action for men be the solution?
It doesn’t seem to me that a case can be made for affirmative action for men, given that either a) The problem is the result of affirmative action, and can be eliminated or b) Women now outperform men for a different reason, in which case that different reason needs to be the real focus.
I do believe that this inequality exists, and not only among minorities. Just looking at my own siblings, I see that my sister takes all the most prestigious classes that she can, while my brother refuses to take honors or AP classes even though the regular classes are far too easy for him.
So what is the problem? Lack of motivation? Are we encouraging girls now, to the exclusion of boys? Are female successes treated as heroes, while male non-athletic successes are nothing special, at best? Is the traditional thinking that males dominate women making boys feel bad about themselves, while making girls feel like they are fighting for something worthwhile? If the last, is this a cyclical effect? Will boys make a comeback if/when women dominate in school and jobs? Is there any way that we can encourage both boys and girls equally, without making the boys feel horrible like they are oppressing girls, and without making girls feel like they are not meant to compete in all fields?
“When a scale fluctuates to it’s equilibrium, let it happen on its own accord; Do not interfere by putting a finger on either side to “try” to speed up its equilibrium; In doing so, the scale will become even more unbalanced and fluctuate more wildly.”
I don’t think female success is due solely to AA. I think AA was enacted right when the women’s rights movement got started, so separating the effects of both is difficult. But I think the latter has been much more important than the former. No longer are girls expected to stay home. They’re expected to go to college just like their brothers. AA may have gotten their female professors and administrators in the door, but I think by and large girls are doing better than they used to because expectations have been raised.
(I wonder if female professors have made an impact in girls’ academic lives. I only had a couple of science profs that were female in college, and yet that didn’t keep me from wanting to continue my education.)
I have the feeling that no one is actively discouraging boys to do well in school. And I don’t think it’s a lack of role models either. I think boys’ hold the myth that doing well in school is tantamount to being a goody-goody or wimpy much closer to their hearts than girls do. Boys try to get their props by excelling in sports and getting into mischeif. Girls are more likely to seek approval from authority figures while pleasing people by being “nice and good”. Hence, the eagerness in getting good grades.
I don’t think AA-for-men needs to be enacted across the board, expecially since we aren’t seeing any negative disparities once men reach the workforce. However, I don’t see anything wrong with recruiting male teachers and possibly weighing their applications more than female applicants in some cases. I think education benefits from diversity, and everyone–not just boys–need to see positive male authority figures.
Maybe doing well in school is now seen as being “girly” as well as “geeky”. What boy wants to be “girly”?
I don’t think boys are that oppressed inside. I think if anything, the fact that boys aren’t worrying as much about school says that boys feel like they can do anything they want and they won’t suffer for it.
I think this would mark the complete turn around of traditional gender roles. Boys may not care that Mommy’s a doctor and Daddy’s a busdriver, but Daddy will. I’m guessing we would see some serious AA, particularly in higher education, and then we would see some change. But I think such a scenario is unlikely.
The 60 Minutes story talked about schools that segregate the genders, and a classroom that had only male students was featured. Interestingly, the boys performed better on average than boys taught with girls. Perhaps gender segregation is an option. I know I would have appreciated middle school a lot more if I hadn’t had to worry about boys snapping my bra straps at every turn!
I gotta disagree with this. Why are poor children poor? Because their parents (their immediate role models) have poor paying jobs. These children have lower aspirations than the children of doctors and college professors, who tend to be in the upper income bracket. Middle class kids (of any race) are more likely to have immediate role models that have prestigious jobs and lifestyles. The same person that a kid in the projects looks up to on a daily basis will more than likely than not be the same kind of person that a private school kid dreams to be like.
Based on the wording of your post I think we may be agreeing more than you think. Monstro said “Black kids don’t see scientists that look like them but they see plenty of pro-ballers that do, so they decide to practice hoops instead of work on their science project.”. Since most black kids don’t know any professional athletes or entertainers it seemed like she was referring to societal role models rather than the kids’ immediate circle of adults. Basically I took this to mean that she thought that society doesn’t portray professional black role models (i.e. doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.). and that this was a primary reason why many poor black kids chose the career paths they did (disproportionately going into sports and entertainment).
IMHO, the life of a child is going to be most affected by their family and home environment. Parents as role models are obviously a major part of that. I can wholeheartedly agree with the statement:
“Kids with a middle or upper class upbringing are more likely to themselves be middle or upper class once they attain adulthood. This is due in large part to the financial, structural, educational, cultural and social advantages conferred by having middle/upper class parents.”
I would disagree with the statement:
“Kids with a lower class upbringing are more likely to themselves be lower class. A primary cause of this is a lack of media and societal images/role models portraying professional, successful adults of that childs race/ethnic background.”
I would agree that the aforementioned lack is a cause, just not a primary one. IMHO it is secondary and minor compared to the nature of the child’s home life and upbringing.
. That is my previous point. You deserve unhindered consideration because you are prepared to be most valuable to a prospective employer. But allow the employer to access your attitude on this regard. No employer owes a job to anybody.