What is a feminist?

[catsix]

NintyWt said:
At university, I knew engineering students who could not cut it - some male and some female.

I don’t know what the burn rate of your program was, but my CoE class began at 200 people, and probably 40% female. There were 30 who made it to graduation. Three of us were female.

I hope I don’t appear to have a ‘gloom and doom’ attitude about this issue - but we have enough problems with simple human error causing engineering failures (Example: failure of the Minneapolis bridge over the Mississippi).

The Hyatt-Regency in Kansas City. Piper Alpha oil platform. Challenger.

In each case people died because engineers were wrong. Lowering standards for engineers is not an option.

Sarahfeena said:
And, if it did, I suspect it would be a disaster of epic proportions. Which, hopefully, would lead to a more balanced study of gender differences, with an emphasis on scientific analysis, vs. feel-good answers.

I’m a computer engineer, and I design software. Would you want me designing the software that controls a plane you fly in if the only reason I’m an engineer is because Title IX said there must be as many female engineers as male engineers?

The time to stop this isn’t after a disaster has already happened.

Oh, I agree 100%, but by disaster I meant in the sense that it won’t be successful.

The fact is, lower standards will mean that people who have no business designing things like bridges and airplanes will be doing so in greater numbers than they already do. I doubt you’ll see 50% of computer engineers being female even with lower standards, but what you will get is a lot of sub-standard engineers.

I really don’t want that, even if it means it’ll always be 9:1 in my field and I’ll be the only chick in the room.

[NinetyWt]

[QUOTE=Manda JO]
You all are talking like Title IX was an unqualified disaster, but remember that before it was passed the conventional wisdom was that girls didn’t like to play sports at all, that for biological reasons they were not suited or interested in physical activity or in competition, so requiring schools to have girls athletics was a farce.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing about Title IX per se; I freely admit my ignorance on that matter, and I don’t disagree with you about womens’ sports programs.

This isn’t to say that we should apply the exact same model to math and science programs, nor is it a claim that Title IX is perfect. But it sure got rid of a piece of conventional wisdom.

Agreed, and that was my concern about the linked article - you can’t squeeze an apple for juice the same way you can an orange.

The subtle pressures away from math and towards humanities are deeply embedded in our culture and while they have diminished, I think it’s too early to say that we’ve removed them entirely so the differences we see in performance must be based in biology.

Agreed.

[QUOTE=Sarafeena]
by disaster I meant in the sense that it won’t be successful
[/QUOTE]
I meant to have added, that I knew this is what you meant. Sorry about that.

I don’t think women who avoid engineering avoid it because it’s hard, I think they avoid it because it’s boring, at least to them. All the Title IX in the world won’t change that.

Agreed.

[QUOTE=catsix]

I don’t know what the burn rate of your program was, but my CoE class began at 200 people, and probably 40% female. There were 30 who made it to graduation. Three of us were female.
[/QUOTE]
I went to a small school. We were lucky if the entire engineering school had 200 graduates. Our Civil department graduated 12 the year I did - 3 of us were women, and IIRC six were foreign nationals. I believe we had about 40 total starting out.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Manda JO]
You all are talking like Title IX was an unqualified disaster
[/quote]

Well, I can’t talk for anybody but myself… but personally, no, that’s not what I’m saying. Not at all.

I’m saying that Title IX, if applied to the hard sciences, would be disastrous. And if the factual claims in the linked article were true (I will get to that, I promise), then for all the good it’s done for women and sports (and it has done good) it’s also done some real harm in situations where there simply weren’t enough women who wanted, of their own free will, to play sports. Punishing men who want to play sports, simply because enough women don’t feel like it, is absurd sexist bullshit that falls under the Law of Unintended Consequences of a quota system.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

This isn’t to say that we should apply the exact same model to math and science programs, nor is it a claim that Title IX is perfect. But it sure got rid of a piece of conventional wisdom.
[/quote]

Our resident engineers have already addressed this, and I really don’t have much to add beyond their excellent commentary. Just to tack on my own pair o’ pennies, I’d argue that we shouldn’t apply even a remotely similar model to the hard sciences.

In the vast gulf between equality of opportunity and opportunity of outcome, lies folly, fallacy and failure.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

In the same way, you can’t look at a lack of girls in a high level math class and draw iron-clad conclusions about inherent ability. The subtle pressures away from math and towards humanities are deeply embedded in our culture and while they have diminished, I think it’s too early to say that we’ve removed them entirely so the differences we see in performance must be based in biology.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not aware that anybody in this thread has said that. If they have, I missed it. My apologies on that count.

The argument I think that others have made, and that I’d certainly make, is that for whatever reason, when anti-discrimination laws are in place, more women than we’ve been seeing enter the hard sciences, simply do not want to. I see no way around that, honestly. If more women want to, and have the grades/skills to cut it, let 'em in! But even if you’re going to posit that many women’s career choices are influenced by society, those re still their choices, and as individuals, they must be respected.

As I stated above, the gulf between equality of outcome vs/ opportunity includes fallacious thought. And it does. You (plural) can often hear people saying that, for instance, the mere fact that demographic group W is X percent of the population, they’re only Y percent of field Z… shows that discrimination/racism is going on. And that’s a fallacy, pure and simple. Before we go discrimination-busting, it behooves us to verify that discrimination is actually going on. Sometimes, for whatever reasons, individuals have their own individual desires and goals. Asking them to behave solely as place holders in a group vs. group demographic brawl is absurd.

Anyways, on the earlier topic of this article, I really don’t see much besides hard factual claims. Now, they may be bullshit, I don’t have the knowledge to verify them unfortunately. If they’re wrong, then the argument they’re based on is, perforce, wrong. But to dismiss the facts and the logic simply because the author is traditionally against feminism is an ad hominem fallacy, pure and simple.

Just as a short list, some of the factual claims that were made included (mods, the article is huge and I’m only taking snippets, I think I’m following Fair Use):

[ul]
[li]“While Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female—even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams.”[/li][li]"At the hearing, Shalala warned that strong measures would be needed to improve the “hostile climate” women face in the academy. This “crisis,” as she called it, “clearly calls for a transformation of academic institutions….Our nation’s future depends on it.” [/li]
Shalala and other speakers called for rigorous application of Title IX and other punitive measures. Witness Freeman Hrabowski, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, stressed the need to threaten obstinate faculties with loss of funding: “People listen to money…. Make the people listen to the money talk!” "
[li]“The idea of “title-nining” academic science was proposed by Debra Rolison in 2000. She has promoted Title IX as an “implacable hammer” guaranteed to get the attention of recalcitrant faculty. Prompted by Rolison and a growing chorus of activists, the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space held a 2002 hearing on “Title IX and Science.” Later, in 2005, former subcommittee chairmen Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator George Allen (R-VA) held a joint press conference with feminist leaders. Wyden declared, “Title IX in math and science is the right way to start.” Allen seconded, “We cannot afford to cut out half our population—the female population.” The Title IX reviews have already begun.”[/li][li]“These proposed solutions assume a problem that might not exist. During her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has noted that “women comprise 43 percent of the workforce but only 23 percent of scientists and engineers” and insists that government take “diversity into account when awarding education and research grants.” But what is the basis for this and other attempts to balance the statistics? If numerical inferiority were sufficient grounds for charges of discrimination or cultural insensitivity, Congress would be holding hearings on the crisis of underrepresentation of men in higher education. After all, women earn most of the degrees—practically across the board. What about male proportionality in the humanities, social sciences, and biology? The physical sciences are the exception, not the rule.”[/li][li] "In 1994, 16 senior faculty women, led by biologist Nancy Hopkins, complained to the administration about sex discrimination in their various departments. MIT’s president, Charles Vest, and the dean of the School of Science, Robert Birgeneau, dutifully set up a committee to review the complaints. But rather than bring in outsiders, they put the protesters (joined by three male administrators) in charge of investigating their own grievances. Under Hopkins’s leadership, the committee produced a 150-page study that found MIT guilty on all counts. Women, according to the document, had lower salaries, less laboratory space, and fewer resources. They felt “invisible” and “marginalized.” Vest and Birgeneau quickly responded with generous salary raises, improved lab space, and more equity committees. The women professed to be satisfied and the case was closed. The report was deemed “confidential” and “sensitive,” and to this day it has never been made public.[/li]What was released to the press, in March of 1999, was a brief summary of the report’s findings along with letters from Vest and Birgeneau admitting guilt. As The Chronicle of Higher Education reported, “MIT released a cursory report of the study it conducted, so it is difficult for outsiders to judge what the gap was between men and women.”

The summary of the report, nevertheless, created a sensation in the media and in universities for two reasons: (1) it appeared to be based on hard data, and (2) it had the full endorsement of MIT’s top administrators. The New York Times carried the story on the front page under the headline, “MIT Admits Discrimination Against Female Professors.” Professor Hopkins was soon everywhere in the press and on April 8, 1999, was invited to attend an Equal Pay Day event at the White House. Referring to Hopkins and her team, President Clinton said, “Together they looked at cold, hard facts about disparity in everything from lab space to annual salary.”

But cold, hard facts had little to do with it. After reviewing the available evidence and interviewing some insiders, University of Alaska psychologist Judith Kleinfeld concluded, “The MIT report presents no objective evidence whatsoever to support claims of gender discrimination in laboratory space, salary, research funds, and other resources.” Readers are told in the summary report that women faculty “proved to be underpaid.” But we also learn that the “salary data are confidential and were not provided to the committee.” So on what basis did they conclude there were salary disparities? Hopkins and the other authors explain, “Possible inequities in salary are flagged by the committee from the limited data available to it.” But “possible” soon became “actual,” and by the time it reached President Clinton it had morphed into “cold, hard facts.”

There were other oddities. The report claimed that the problems confronting women faculty were universal, but the summary concedes, “Junior women felt included and supported by their departments.” Instead of acknowledging that the problem might be generational and confined to a small group of senior women from three departments, Hopkins and the other authors of the report claimed that the junior women were naïve and simply did not know what was in store for them: “Each generation of young women began…by believing that gender discrimination was solved in the previous generation and would not touch them.”

Mathematics professor Daniel Kleitman, one of the three males on the Hopkins committee, told the Chronicle that he “never saw any evidence” of discrimination against women. He concedes the senior women were unhappy, and he does not fault the administrators for trying to remedy the situation. But, as he explained, you can find unhappy professors in all universities. “I am not sure what the women were experiencing was unique to women,” he said." "
[/ul]

In general, she continues in this vein. She relies on facts, points out methodological problems with research and to be frank, most of her logic seems fairly cogent and coherent to me.
If folks disagree with what she says, rather than who she is, I’d be very curious to see those objections and the reasons behind them.

[MandaJo]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]

I’m not aware that anybody in this thread has said that. If they have, I missed it. My apologies on that count.
[/quote]

The OP began the thread saying

And that there are certain areas of interest that are more “feminine,” some that are more “masculine,” and that there is often a biological basis for which is which. I also believe that modern gender dynamics have evolved from traditional gender roles, which evolved (quite literally) from our animal ancestry, where males have the role of hunter, and the females have the role of gatherer, where the males are more removed from daily family life, and the females are the nurturers. I think that most people are generally happiest when in these traditional roles (or, at least, our modern approximation of them) . . .

and then in this specific tangent has said:

I don’t think women who avoid engineering avoid it because it’s hard, I think they avoid it because it’s boring, at least to them. All the Title IX in the world won’t change that.

and

Although it seems as though the movement to apply Title IX to academics has legs, I think there would be enough pushback from top-level programs that it is unlikely to happen. And, if it did, I suspect it would be a disaster of epic proportions. Which, hopefully, would lead to a more balanced study of gender differences, with an emphasis on scientific analysis, vs. feel-good answers.

All of which seem to say that women inherently dislike math and science oriented thinking because of their biology, as opposed to a strong, deeply embedded cultural bias. My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence about this except for common sense, but that “common sense” said that girls wouldn’t play basketball or softball or volleyball, so it was a waste of taxpayers money to say schools had to have them. Except it turned out that girls love to play organized sports.

I mean, African Americans are also vastly underrepresented in the hard sciences, but no one is suggesting that that is the result of biological forces, because that would be ridiculous. We can see there that cultural forces are acting. In the same way, I think that it is highly plausible that cultural forces are acting to steer women away from math and science, and it’d be a good idea to to something to help remedy this, and not shrug it off as biology. Because if we had accepted what appeared to be biological truths about women and men fifty years ago, the women’s rights movement never would have happened at all.

People are pointing at engineering classes with 140 boys and 20 girls as evidence that girls have no interest or passion for the subject. I am wondering instead if it means that there are 120 girls out there that could have been wonderful, happy engineers who are instead mediocre something elses because they never even understood engineering was perfect for them, in the same way that there were surely amazingly talented girls and women in the pre-title IX days who never discovered that they had something out of the ordinary.

There may well be biological differences in the way men and women process engineering, but I think it is way to early to tell, and considering how many of the things we thought were biologically predetermined have turned out not to be, I think we ought to continue to put time, money,and effort into pursuing the possibility that we are discouraging great pools of talent and seeing what we can do to recitify it. I don’t suggest a Title IX type program, but I do think teachers and parents can be better educated about how they can unwittingly pass on gender stereotypes, and I am a huge fan of the many public and private programs designed to help foster girls’ interest in math and science. I get the impression that the OP disagrees with me and thinks that the current disproportional representation reflect the biological norm and will remain constant no matter what interventions are in place.

[NinetyWt]

[QUOTE=Manda JO]
There may well be biological differences in the way men and women process engineering, but I think it is way to early to tell, and considering how many of the things we thought were biologically predetermined have turned out not to be, I think we ought to continue to put time, money,and effort into pursuing the possibility that we are discouraging great pools of talent and seeing what we can do to recitify it. I don’t suggest a Title IX type program, but I do think teachers and parents can be better educated about how they can unwittingly pass on gender stereotypes, and I am a huge fan of the many public and private programs designed to help foster girls’ interest in math and science. I get the impression that the OP disagrees with me and thinks that the current disproportional representation reflect the biological norm and will remain constant no matter what interventions are in place.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you about better educating teachers, counselors, and parents, and I wholeheartedly embrace programs which encourage girls’ interest in math and science. There are some very good ones out there.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has a history of outreach and encouragement to women and minorities. I ran across this very interesting report regarding one of their programs:

http://www.engineeringwomen.org/video.html

A coalition of engineering societies and an educational foundation are in charge of the project.

the coalition began with a review of the question, “Why are academically prepared girls not considering or enrolling in engineering degree programs?” We know the issue is not one of ability or preparation. Researchers Huang, Taddese, and Walter found that girls are taking high school science and math courses at approximately the same rate as boys: 94% of girls and 91% of boys take biology, 64% of girls and 57% of boys take chemistry, 26% of girls and 32% of boys take physics, and 64% of girls and 60% of boys take algebra II. We believe that the problem is one of perception. Girls and the people who influence them—teachers, school counselors, parents, peers, and the media—do not understand what a career in engineering looks like and therefore don’t consider it as a career option.

Their findings support MandaJO’s suggestion that cultural forces are still steering women away. They report that high school girls “do not understand what engineering is” and that “they do not show and interest in the field or think it is for them”.

Their recommendation is that engineering careers be presented differently:

To achieve the project’s goal of increasing the number of academically prepared girls who pursue an education and subsequent career in engineering, we recommend a fundamental shift in the way engineering is portrayed. Rather than focusing on the process and challenges of becoming an engineer, we recommend a focus on the benefits and rewards of being an engineer as they relate to the career motivators identified by the girls in this assessment.

(their bolding).

This is the kind of thing we should be focusing energy on, rather than changing the academic programs themselves.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Manda JO]
The OP began the thread saying
[/quote]

But notice the numerous qualifiers and ‘maybe’ words. Not, as you asserted and I responded to, “iron-clad conclusions about inherent ability”.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

and then in this specific tangent has said:
[/quote]

Also not talking about ability, let alone inherent ability, but talking about those women who are not interested in engineering. I read, and still read that as a some-but-not-all statement.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

and
[/quote]

Also nothing about an iron-clad anything, but a statement that forcing Title IX on education would be a disaster, and that we should study gender roles instead of simply adopting feel-good answers without research.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe you’re right in that other folks in this thread have said anything about “iron-clad conclusions about inherent ability”.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

I mean, African Americans are also vastly underrepresented in the hard sciences, but no one is suggesting that that is the result of biological forces, because that would be ridiculous.
[/quote]

But black =/= verifiable chromosomal, neurological and hormonal differences for a vast percentage of those who have certain chromosomes. It is not beyond the pale to postulate certain effects of millions of years of evolution, especially when one says that we could expect to find them, but research has to be done to confirm or rebut.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

We can see there that cultural forces are acting. In the same way, I think that it is highly plausible that cultural forces are acting to steer women away from math and science, and it’d be a good idea to to something to help remedy this, and not shrug it off as biology.
[/quote]

Well, as I read the quotes you provided differently then you did… I’d see the problem as being that there are likely some cultural forces that shape people. There are likely some cultural forces that are shaped by biology. There are likely some individual behaviors that are shaped by culture. There are likely some individual behaviors that are shaped by biology. There are likely some individual behaviors that are shaped by cultural patterns which were, in turn, shaped by biology. And, likewise, there are certain biological drives whose expression have been shaped by our culture.

I saw the posts you quoted as being for making tentative hypotheses currently and calling for further research, instead of simply saying that men and women are, or would be pretty much interchangeable if not for cultural factors. Or, if you would “feel good answers”.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

Because if we had accepted what appeared to be biological truths about women and men fifty years ago, the women’s rights movement never would have happened at all.
[/quote]

Likewise, the fact that certain biological truths were disregarded (a higher percentage of women than men will most likely have a biologically based ‘nurturing’ instinct, or we probably never would have made it out of the neolothic age, as a species)… resulted in various splinter groups of feminism slamming women who want to stay at home and raise children, or women who want to look sexy so that they can get laid, as ‘traitors’ to the movement.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

People are pointing at engineering classes with 140 boys and 20 girls as evidence that girls have no interest or passion for the subject. I am wondering instead if it means that there are 120 girls out there that could have been wonderful, happy engineers who are instead mediocre something elses because they never even understood engineering was perfect for them, in the same way that there were surely amazingly talented girls and women in the pre-title IX days who never discovered that they had something out of the ordinary.
[/quote]

The two are not mutually exclusive. There were only 20 out of 140 because only 20 were interested, but perhaps with different early childhood education, more women would find out more about it, and become interested later in life.
The problem I see with your logic is the blanket statements, to be frank. It’s the difference between “those girls who choose not to be engineers do so because they most likely have no interest in the subject” and “girls have no interest in the subject.”

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

There may well be biological differences in the way men and women process engineering, but I think it is way to early to tell, and considering how many of the things we thought were biologically predetermined have turned out not to be, I think we ought to continue to put time, money,and effort into pursuing the possibility that we are discouraging great pools of talent and seeing what we can do to recitify it.
[/quote]

Hell, I think that our national security in the next 50-100 years, as well as our economic viability for the next 100-200 years will depend, almost exclusively, on our high technology sector. I am all for as many programs as are reasonable so that young children can be exposed to the sciences, and those who take to them will be more likely to peruse a career in them. I don’t believe in forcing them, of course, or in ramming through top-down, government sponsored education reforms.

There is, and always will be, a vast gulf between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Hell, I’m one of a small number of male teachers, and I’ve always loved the complexities and power of the English language. While I was always good at math and science, James Joyce is far more interesting to me than Fenyman, as cool as quantum mechanics is.

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

I don’t suggest a Title IX type program, but I do think teachers and parents can be better educated about how they can unwittingly pass on gender stereotypes, and I am a huge fan of the many public and private programs designed to help foster girls’ interest in math and science.
[/quote]

Agreed, sorta. As you might be able to guess from my spiel about humanism, I believe that we should try to get as many children as possible excited about the sciences. I don’t want to see a program just to get girls interested.
What if the next great breakthrough in nanotechnology would’ve come from a young boy, except he never got invited to the ‘science can be fun!’ lessons that the girls all got to go to.

I’m being a little bit tongue in cheek, but perhaps you grok my point?

[Dangerosa]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Sorry… I’m in the middle of packing a picnic lunch, and about to run. But, to be brief: I found it scary that it isn’t out of the realm of possibility that applying Title IX to academia might actually succeed one day, and we’d gut our hard science programs on the altar of ‘equality of outcome’.

I think I’m on the same wavelength as Ninety on that point, upon preview.

Well, truth to be told, I haven’t had time to do a close reading yet.. but it seems like many of her claims are 100% factual and not open to bias or distortion. I’ll comb through it later to see what I can see.
[/QUOTE]

I’d recommend reading everything Christina Hoff Sommers has to say assuming she cherry picked her facts, found two feminists who agree on something that the other twenty six she talked to didn’t and then wrote an article saying feminists want quotas in engineering schools. Since I’ve been reading her for twenty years and have never seen her do anything else. She does have some good points - feminist research can be flawed, sometimes terribly flawed, and carry an agenda - but she likes to present radical feminists as mainstream and will dismiss entire bodies of work over nitpicky flaws - and has an agenda of her own.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

The OP began the thread saying

and then in this specific tangent has said:

and

All of which seem to say that women inherently dislike math and science oriented thinking because of their biology, as opposed to a strong, deeply embedded cultural bias. My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence about this except for common sense, but that “common sense” said that girls wouldn’t play basketball or softball or volleyball, so it was a waste of taxpayers money to say schools had to have them. Except it turned out that girls love to play organized sports.

Except that some evidence shows that girls do not love to play organzied sports as much as boys do. I don’t have a problem with Title IX in its spirit, and I think for the most part its results have been posititve, but my problem here is that I don’t think it’s applicable to academics. For one thing, Title IX never called for girls and boys to compete head-to-head, it only calls for girls to have their own programs. As others have pointed out, it wouldn’t be prudent to lower standards to get anyone into engineering programs, so what should be proposed as a solution there? You can’t have women-only engineering programs, that wouldn’t be right.

I mean, African Americans are also vastly underrepresented in the hard sciences, but no one is suggesting that that is the result of biological forces, because that would be ridiculous. We can see there that cultural forces are acting. In the same way, I think that it is highly plausible that cultural forces are acting to steer women away from math and science, and it’d be a good idea to to something to help remedy this, and not shrug it off as biology. Because if we had accepted what appeared to be biological truths about women and men fifty years ago, the women’s rights movement never would have happened at all.

The difference here is that African-Americans are underrepresented in acadamia in general…we can’t even get inner-city kids to graduate high school. Clearly, there are cultural forces at work there. Women, on the other hand, are OVER-represented (slightly) at universities. So, the cultural forces are a little murkier. Women become doctors, for instance, all the time. And is it a coincidence that 5 of the 6 doctors at the pediatrics practice I take my kids to are women? They all seem pretty sharp…I’m sure they could have selected any specialty they wanted to. I just have my doubts that these women…smart and driven enough to get through medical school…have been hopelessly influenced by culture to the extent that they only THINK they like taking care of children.

People are pointing at engineering classes with 140 boys and 20 girls as evidence that girls have no interest or passion for the subject. I am wondering instead if it means that there are 120 girls out there that could have been wonderful, happy engineers who are instead mediocre something elses because they never even understood engineering was perfect for them, in the same way that there were surely amazingly talented girls and women in the pre-title IX days who never discovered that they had something out of the ordinary.

My WAG based on all the things I’ve read on this issue is the number of girls who might become interested, if given the chance, would be somewhere inbetween those numbers. What I guess I don’t understand is where these girls (especially these days) get these subtle pressures not to be good at math. I sucked at it, and I got crap for it from my teachers and my parents!

There may well be biological differences in the way men and women process engineering, but I think it is way to early to tell, and considering how many of the things we thought were biologically predetermined have turned out not to be, I think we ought to continue to put time, money,and effort into pursuing the possibility that we are discouraging great pools of talent and seeing what we can do to recitify it. I don’t suggest a Title IX type program, but I do think teachers and parents can be better educated about how they can unwittingly pass on gender stereotypes, and I am a huge fan of the many public and private programs designed to help foster girls’ interest in math and science. I get the impression that the OP disagrees with me and thinks that the current disproportional representation reflect the biological norm and will remain constant no matter what interventions are in place.

I agree with all of this. As I said earlier, I’m against affirmative action programs in general, so I think a Title IX program is a mistake. But I don’t disagree that anything we can do to broaden the horizions of any student is a good thing.

[catsix]

Manda JO said:
People are pointing at engineering classes with 140 boys and 20 girls as evidence that girls have no interest or passion for the subject. I am wondering instead if it means that there are 120 girls out there that could have been wonderful, happy engineers who are instead mediocre something elses because they never even understood engineering was perfect for them, in the same way that there were surely amazingly talented girls and women in the pre-title IX days who never discovered that they had something out of the ordinary.

At Pitt, which is where I got my degree, there was this huge push to get more girls into engineering majors. They had female engineers come and talk to the students, they had a female-only engineers club, they pointed us to scholarships that were for female engineers, and freshmen advisors would have posters and stuff that showed girls in labs and pushed sciences/engineering.

So we had a lot of girls in Engineering 11 and 12 (basic freshman level intro classes), but a year later when it was discrete maths the numbers had fallen considerably, and by graduation in my department we were down to three. It wasn’t because people weren’t telling these girls to try it, or that they lacked support.

I don’t suggest a Title IX type program, but I do think teachers and parents can be better educated about how they can unwittingly pass on gender stereotypes, and I am a huge fan of the many public and private programs designed to help foster girls’ interest in math and science.

I participated in a lot of young people in science type activities. Granted, they weren’t girl-specific, but out of my primary and secondary school days, the three biggest nerds in school other than me were two girls and a boy. We did junior engineering competitions, science field trips, all kind of stuff like that.

Fast forward to now. I’m the only one of the four of us who stuck with it. Why is that?

Why is it that when I ask women who claim there is discrimination that prevents women from being engineers ‘So why didn’t you go into engineering?’ the answer usually involves ‘Because I didn’t want to.’ and not ‘Because I wasn’t allowed to.’

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Manda JO]

The OP began the thread saying

and then in this specific tangent has said:

and

All of which seem to say that women inherently dislike math and science oriented thinking because of their biology, as opposed to a strong, deeply embedded cultural bias. My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence about this except for common sense, but that “common sense” said that girls wouldn’t play basketball or softball or volleyball, so it was a waste of taxpayers money to say schools had to have them. Except it turned out that girls love to play organized sports.

Except that some evidence shows that girls do not love to play organzied sports as much as boys do. I don’t have a problem with Title IX in its spirit, and I think for the most part its results have been posititve, but my problem here is that I don’t think it’s applicable to academics. For one thing, Title IX never called for girls and boys to compete head-to-head, it only calls for girls to have their own programs. As others have pointed out, it wouldn’t be prudent to lower standards to get anyone into engineering programs, so what should be proposed as a solution there? You can’t have women-only engineering programs, that wouldn’t be right.

I mean, African Americans are also vastly underrepresented in the hard sciences, but no one is suggesting that that is the result of biological forces, because that would be ridiculous. We can see there that cultural forces are acting. In the same way, I think that it is highly plausible that cultural forces are acting to steer women away from math and science, and it’d be a good idea to to something to help remedy this, and not shrug it off as biology. Because if we had accepted what appeared to be biological truths about women and men fifty years ago, the women’s rights movement never would have happened at all.

The difference here is that African-Americans are underrepresented in acadamia in general…we can’t even get inner-city kids to graduate high school. Clearly, there are cultural forces at work there. Women, on the other hand, are OVER-represented (slightly) at universities. So, the cultural forces are a little murkier. Women become doctors, for instance, all the time. And is it a coincidence that 5 of the 6 doctors at the pediatrics practice I take my kids to are women? They all seem pretty sharp…I’m sure they could have selected any specialty they wanted to. I just have my doubts that these women…smart and driven enough to get through medical school…have been hopelessly influenced by culture to the extent that they only THINK they like taking care of children.

People are pointing at engineering classes with 140 boys and 20 girls as evidence that girls have no interest or passion for the subject. I am wondering instead if it means that there are 120 girls out there that could have been wonderful, happy engineers who are instead mediocre something elses because they never even understood engineering was perfect for them, in the same way that there were surely amazingly talented girls and women in the pre-title IX days who never discovered that they had something out of the ordinary.

My WAG based on all the things I’ve read on this issue is the number of girls who might become interested, if given the chance, would be somewhere inbetween those numbers. What I guess I don’t understand is where these girls (especially these days) get these subtle pressures not to be good at math. I sucked at it, and I got crap for it from my teachers and my parents!

There may well be biological differences in the way men and women process engineering, but I think it is way to early to tell, and considering how many of the things we thought were biologically predetermined have turned out not to be, I think we ought to continue to put time, money,and effort into pursuing the possibility that we are discouraging great pools of talent and seeing what we can do to recitify it. I don’t suggest a Title IX type program, but I do think teachers and parents can be better educated about how they can unwittingly pass on gender stereotypes, and I am a huge fan of the many public and private programs designed to help foster girls’ interest in math and science. I get the impression that the OP disagrees with me and thinks that the current disproportional representation reflect the biological norm and will remain constant no matter what interventions are in place.

I agree with all of this. As I said earlier, I’m against affirmative action programs in general, so I think a Title IX program is a mistake. But I don’t disagree that anything we can do to broaden the horizions of any student is a good thing.

[Sarahfeena]

AHA! I thought the hamsters ate my post, but I actually had a bad quote tag…

[QUOTE=Manda JO]
The OP began the thread saying

and then in this specific tangent has said:

and

All of which seem to say that women inherently dislike math and science oriented thinking because of their biology, as opposed to a strong, deeply embedded cultural bias. My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence about this except for common sense, but that “common sense” said that girls wouldn’t play basketball or softball or volleyball, so it was a waste of taxpayers money to say schools had to have them. Except it turned out that girls love to play organized sports.
[/QUOTE]
Except that some evidence shows that girls do not love to play organzied sports as much as boys do. I don’t have a problem with Title IX in its spirit, and I think for the most part its results have been positive, but my problem here is that I don’t think it’s applicable to academics. For one thing, Title IX never called for girls and boys to compete head-to-head, it only calls for girls to have their own programs. As others have pointed out, it wouldn’t be prudent to lower standards to get anyone into engineering programs, so what should be proposed as a solution there? You can’t have women-only engineering programs.

I mean, African Americans are also vastly underrepresented in the hard sciences, but no one is suggesting that that is the result of biological forces, because that would be ridiculous. We can see there that cultural forces are acting. In the same way, I think that it is highly plausible that cultural forces are acting to steer women away from math and science, and it’d be a good idea to to something to help remedy this, and not shrug it off as biology. Because if we had accepted what appeared to be biological truths about women and men fifty years ago, the women’s rights movement never would have happened at all.

The difference here is that African-Americans are underrepresented in acadamia in general…we can’t even get inner-city kids to graduate high school. Clearly, there are cultural forces at work there. Women, on the other hand, are OVER-represented (slightly) at universities. So, the cultural forces are a little murkier. Women become doctors, for instance, all the time. And is it a coincidence that 5 of the 6 doctors at the pediatrics practice I take my kids to are women? They all seem pretty sharp…I’m sure they could have selected any specialty they wanted to. I just have my doubts that these women…smart and driven enough to get through medical school…have been hopelessly influenced by culture to the extent that they only THINK they like taking care of children.

People are pointing at engineering classes with 140 boys and 20 girls as evidence that girls have no interest or passion for the subject. I am wondering instead if it means that there are 120 girls out there that could have been wonderful, happy engineers who are instead mediocre something elses because they never even understood engineering was perfect for them, in the same way that there were surely amazingly talented girls and women in the pre-title IX days who never discovered that they had something out of the ordinary.

My WAG based on all the things I’ve read on this issue is the number of girls who might become interested, if given the chance, would be somewhere inbetween those numbers. What I guess I don’t understand is where these girls (especially these days) get these subtle pressures not to be good at math. I sucked at it, and I got crap for it from my teachers and my parents!

There may well be biological differences in the way men and women process engineering, but I think it is way to early to tell, and considering how many of the things we thought were biologically predetermined have turned out not to be, I think we ought to continue to put time, money,and effort into pursuing the possibility that we are discouraging great pools of talent and seeing what we can do to recitify it. I don’t suggest a Title IX type program, but I do think teachers and parents can be better educated about how they can unwittingly pass on gender stereotypes, and I am a huge fan of the many public and private programs designed to help foster girls’ interest in math and science. I get the impression that the OP disagrees with me and thinks that the current disproportional representation reflect the biological norm and will remain constant no matter what interventions are in place.

I agree with all of this. As I said earlier, I’m against affirmative action programs in general, so I think a Title IX program is a mistake. But I don’t disagree that anything we can do to broaden the horizions of any student is a good thing.

[Justin_Bailey]

In discussions of feminism I think it’d be very interesting to see the reaction to the following things:

If a group of men (and a handful of women) got together and started promoting “masculinism” as the equality of the sexes. It would mean the same thing as feminism wouldn’t it? Somehow, I don’t think the group would last.

The other idea I had (which came about in the last feminism debate in GD) was to take two grade school age twins. One boy and one girl. Put the girl in the popular shirt “Boys are stupid… throws rocks at them” and put the boy in a shirt that says “Girls are stupid… throws rocks at them”. Then sit back and watch which one gets sent to the principal’s office first. Something tells me the girl would go through school all day with no one even commenting on the shirt and the boy would be sent away as soon as a female employee saw it.

[NinetyWt]

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
In discussions of feminism I think it’d be very interesting to see the reaction to the following things:

If a group of men (and a handful of women) got together and started promoting “masculinism” as the equality of the sexes. It would mean the same thing as feminism wouldn’t it? Somehow, I don’t think the group would last.
[/quote]
Others can answer this better than I. Hopefully one day we won’t need a feminist movement. Guys don’t need a masculine movement for equality.

The other idea I had (which came about in the last feminism debate in GD) was to take two grade school age twins. One boy and one girl. Put the girl in the popular shirt “Boys are stupid… throws rocks at them” and put the boy in a shirt that says “Girls are stupid… throws rocks at them”. Then sit back and watch which one gets sent to the principal’s office first. Something tells me the girl would go through school all day with no one even commenting on the shirt and the boy would be sent away as soon as a female employee saw it.

All kinds of stupid things happen at school so this experiment would be irrelevant. Two cases: My younger son and his friend wore an identical pair of Jenco brand shorts to school, which had a screenprint of a pair of flaming dice on the pocket. The friend was sent home to change. My son was not. Second case: my older son, then 18, smoked a cigarette on his way to high school, in his own personal vehicle. That morning at school the assistant principal wrote him up for coming to school “under the influence of nicotine”.

[Justin_Bailey]

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
Others can answer this better than I. Hopefully one day we won’t need a feminist movement. Guys don’t need a masculine movement for equality.
[/QUOTE]

And has been pointed out in this thread, neither do women.

You can talk about the global idea of feminism all you want, but in the United States, in 2008, there is complete equality of oppurtunity between men and women.

[NinetyWt]

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
You can talk about the global idea of feminism all you want, but in the United States, in 2008, there is complete equality of oppurtunity between men and women.
[/QUOTE]
As has been hashed out upthread, the feminism of today is not the feminism of your grandmother’s time. There was a need for that kind of it at the time; feminism has grown and changed; etc. etc. As a matter of fact, I took the OP as a kind of a question: “Where is feminism today? What does it mean?” It’s a moving, changing thing.

As for opportunity, if someone’s arguing that point in this thread then I have missed it. Most recently we were discussing outreach programs to interest young women in the sciences, rather than tinkering with science educational standards.

[Justin_Bailey]

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
As for opportunity, if someone’s arguing that point in this thread then I have missed it. Most recently we were discussing outreach programs to interest young women in the sciences, rather than tinkering with science educational standards.
[/QUOTE]

miss elizabeth seems to be pushing the idea that feminism is still needed because woman are still not equal.

But as for getting women interesting in the sciences, why is that a part of feminism at all? As catsix has pointed out, no one is saying women can’t go into the sciences. Promoting it to girls is one thing (anymore than promoting Library Science to men because there are so few male librarians is masculinism), but that doesn’t make it “feminism.” It makes it demographic marketing.

[NinetyWt]

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
but that doesn’t make it “feminism.” It makes it demographic marketing.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. Perhaps. Personally I think science careers should be encouraged across the board.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
As has been hashed out upthread, the feminism of today is not the feminism of your grandmother’s time. There was a need for that kind of it at the time; feminism has grown and changed; etc. etc. As a matter of fact, I took the OP as a kind of a question: “Where is feminism today? What does it mean?” It’s a moving, changing thing.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is a fair assessment of what I was trying to get at in the OP. I think most people would agree that, at least in the West, that girls/women (as a group) have virutally the same opportunities as boys/men. I guess the question now is, do there continue to be social pressures that influence girls to take different paths than boys, and maybe more importantly, does it matter if there are? If there are, can this be changed, or is it so ingrained as part of our culture that it’s a losing battle? Is culture influenced by biology, is it the other way around, or do they have a sort of symbiotic relationship that can’t be extricated from each other? And should feminism as a social movement attempt to divorce the two? Is it in the best interests of society to do so?

miss elizabeth pointed out that feminism is a global movement, and one thing I have always thought about the above is that if our big complaint here in the US is that we don’t have enough female engineers, then we are pretty goddamn lucky in the equality department.

As for opportunity, if someone’s arguing that point in this thread then I have missed it. Most recently we were discussing outreach programs to interest young women in the sciences, rather than tinkering with science educational standards.

I’m certainly more for the former than the latter. The biggest problem I see with it, is that if catsix’s experience is typical, then the outreach programs don’t work that well. And, if the activists I know are typical, then it doesn’t matter what the reason is that they don’t work that well, efforts will be put towards the next more radical step to try to make them successful. And so on, until they see the results they desire, regardless of any unintended consequences those efforts produce.

[NinetyWt]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I guess the question now is, do there continue to be social pressures that influence girls to take different paths than boys, and maybe more importantly, does it matter if there are? If there are, can this be changed, or is it so ingrained as part of our culture that it’s a losing battle? Is culture influenced by biology, is it the other way around, or do they have a sort of symbiotic relationship that can’t be extricated from each other? And should feminism as a social movement attempt to divorce the two? Is it in the best interests of society to do so?
[/quote]
These are all good questions, and I think parents and educators should be contemplating them.

Frankly, I was a bit surprised at the findings of the ASCE report I linked previously:

The common understanding among all audiences is that engineering is perceived to be a man’s profession and there is little to no encouragement for girls to consider engineering.

Surely no one percieves any profession as restricted to one gender anymore? I don’t think my kids do.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=NinetyWt]
These are all good questions, and I think parents and educators should be contemplating them.

Frankly, I was a bit surprised at the findings of the ASCE report I linked previously:

Surely no one percieves any profession as restricted to one gender anymore? I don’t think my kids do.
[/QUOTE]
I find that surprising, too. I guess the argument is that even if girls don’t consciously choose that type of career because they see it as a “man’s profession,” society still might have pressured them to see it that way, or to avoid developing an interest in it.