I’m not so sure that it’s only cultural baggage. For one thing, it might be at least partly an issue of overgeneralization (if that’s a useful distinction). I believe that there are things that men/fathers are statistically better or more natural at than women/mothers on the average, but that we run into trouble when we try to force individuals to match those generalizations.
We’re not that well organized.
I won’t insult your individuality by giving you orders, and I probably won’t offer to protect you if you don’t want protection. (Although coffeespouse and I have protection wars where she wants to keep me safe, and I want to keep her safe.) Want to fight by my side? I’m sure we’ll find somebody to protect. Kids, something.
That isn’t circular logic fallacy. That is just having a different definition of “nice”.
I’m sure it’s a bit of both natural ability and cultural bias , depending on the task it could be more of one than the other.
Some people are more hung up on it than others. Such as with your example of wolverine. There are in fact a lot of people who display little man syndrome or Napoleon syndrome, overcompensating for their stature by exaggerating their masculine traits. IME mainly short men or Butch women.
I’m just not real hung up on which is which.
I think my mom heavily influences my attitude, not really getting hung up on it.
She knows how to fix cars, but lacks the physical strength. When I was a kid she would ask the neighbor for help, he would put his hands up and shake his head saying he had no idea how to fix a car. She would simply say , no problem, I know what I’m doing, I just can’t. If you could loosen this one bolt then I’ve got it.
Together they made one mechanic.
As a 14 year old boy it became me who did the bolt loosening. This is probably why she never became a mechanic… Had she been fully capable her interest may have developed beyond doing it when she had to.
She’d often relate stories like that when other women seemed a little too gung ho about taking on “masculine” tasks. Warning to let a man help or let a man do it as all of her attempts had simply been much harder on her body because she just was not well equipped for the task.
Not that this applies to all women. Though out of all the female mechanics I worked with in the army it would apply to all but one. Out all the male mechanics ( vastly greater numbers) it would apply to two that I met.
Did she think of herself as masculine …no…did she think the neighbor was feminine…nope… actually to most he would be considered rather masculine as he was a cowboy/farmhand type.
To me, let others construe these things as they will, and let everyone do as they like… No need to place any artificial restrictions on anyone, and no need to expect someone to do something they aren’t fully capable of either.
Expounding on the cowboy/farmhand type he literally was a farmhand and I’d seen this guy lasso and constrain bulls with a couple other guys. He was also very short.
Right on!
How would you know that this hypothesis is true?
And that’s a good example. How do you know it’s a lie? You know that men dominate the field of mathematics. How do you establish that the causes are cultural rather than biological?
Actually the evidence points to biological.
Girls tend to start doing more poorly in math and science around puberty, presumably for a lack of interest.
Their environment or classroom opportunity is unchanged or in many cases now favored because this is common knowledge in educational systems and yet this is when their scores decline. Circumstantially this points to hormone changes causing the lack of interest.
I’d posthumate they are still fully capable and those with interest indeed excel…
Because it’s absurd to think that the raw biology of being male makes a person better at math?
And maybe they can’t and the paradigm is correct. Once again, how would you know? You might think it would be better if they could, but that’s like believing in a benevolent god or Santa Claus because the world would be better, especially around Christmas time. But what if (most, because obviously no trait is universal) men have an inherent, biology-driven, tendency towards rape and violence, for instance? How could you show that it isn’t the case?
Seriously? :rolleyes:
So a study that says that despite already being an especially encouraged group girls still lose interest and the answers are even more encouragement.
Why do they need so much special treatment to attain even a marginal percentage of interested girls?
Oh, that link wasn’t for you, it was for people who would read it.
And if it’s cultural wouldn’t we see at least similar trends in very young girls … Since the whole girls do this and boys do that thing starts basically from birth?
I see , you didn’t read it yourself.
The topic paragraph, in case you missed it.
The study, done by Microsoft in partnership with KRC Research, finds that despite the high priority that is placed on STEM in schools, efforts to expand female interest and employment in STEM and computer science are not working as well as intended. This is especially true in technology and engineering.
Gotta read the whole thing for context. Reading just the topic paragraph and going off half-cocked based on that don’t cut it.
Culture is more complicated than that. Specifically, culture for a person actually changes with each year of their lives at that age range. The expectations on a young woman become more clear, the expectations on a young man become more clear, and those things change as they go.
And what objectively differentiates good fathering from good mothering, apart from breast-feeding?
I’ve read it and I don’t see much backing up your position. What you linked to was basically an ad for the Microsoft Corporation in which they brag about how much they support supporting women in STEM fields. So not the best source for those looking for impartial scientific research on the topic of why men outnumber women in the STEM fields. There is no hard data backing up your claim of societal pressure pushing young women away from math and science.
Maybe you should have read the article a bit more carefully.
If we actually want sound research on why fewer women go into those fields, there’s plenty available. We could start with the widely publicized study from last year establishing that in the most gender-equal societies like Sweden, fewer women go into technical fields than in many other countries. Where women get to choose their own careers, even when massive efforts are made to establish gender equality, few women choose technical fields.
Sorry, but how is that absurd? It’s only absurd if you make the assumption that male and female brains are identical, which is unproven (and in fact currently heavily disputed, in large part for ideological reasons).
And? The existence of social pressures going in some direction isn’t an evidence that there aren’t biological differences as well.