Feminism

[merithyn]

I wonder if this falls in line with the idea that it's better to stick with what others deem okay for you rather than be a "social trailblazer" and step outside that.

The early to mid teens is where mathematical ability is most easily developed. And I would guess that early to mid teen girls are one of the least likely groups to defy their peers.

Well, I know how to fix that with Riley. We'll just tell her that she can't do it.

[derspiess]

I'm curious. Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

Well, you do seem to have your buttons

That's not how you described a drama queen, and you said that your wife had hers, and yet wasn't a drama queen.

So, I ask again: Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

I don't know how you are in your day to day life, but going by your Languish persona I'd say yeah, sorta.  But don't take that the wrong way-- you have many other redeeming qualities and you're definitely not alone.

[merithyn]

Oh, I don't. I am most certainly not a drama queen in real life, but I wondered if it seemed so on Languish, where the conversation is almost always provoking in some sense or another.

[Grey Fox]

Meri, I'd say yes. Mostly because Languish is full of men that consistantly push your buttons for kicks.

Things would be different if, for example, our aims was to get in your pants.

[DGuller]

If you understand all that, then why did you bring up all those points as if they were logically inconsistent with the notion than men are slightly better than women at math?  If you understood all that, then you would not be dumbfounded by things you claimed to be dumbfounded by.

I'm dumbfounded on the why, not what.

I can say it again, as it seems to be lost on you, but I'm not sure there's much point.

I think the point of what you said is lost on you.  Here's what you said, broken down by sentence:

The math thing is still something that grates on my nerves because I've yet to find a logical, conclusive reason for why women, in general, have a harder time in math than men, and yet individual women can succeed so well in it and individual men can fail miserably.

So you understood my statistical point all along, and at the same time you have yet to find a logical conclusive reason why those two things can both be true?  Something is definitely lost on me here.

Obviously, it's not an XX thing, or it would be the same across the board for all men and women.

Again, it's another statement that inconsistent with truly understanding the point I made.  There is variance in nature, hence the bell curve and not bell singular point, so even in cases where there are fundamental gender differences, you are still unlikely have that difference manifested across the board for all men and women.

There is a reason this happens, and the only thing that I can imagine is the way that it is taught.

And this statement made me believe that you found all the previous points to be inconsistent with the existence of fundamental differences in math ability by gender, which is why I brought up the statistical point as a refutation.

[Admiral Yi]

My argument is that there is not an equality of opportunity.

The only support you've offered so far for this assertion is the outcome.

[merithyn]

My best friend's sister is to me the penultimate drama queen.  She will create a major controversy out of the slightest issue, and if none exists she'll actively stir shit up.  She does happen to be a redhead, FWIW.

Interesting. So by the above definition, you think that I'm a drama queen? You believe that I create a major controversy out of the slightest issue or if none exists at all?

I'm honestly not being defensive. I just find the perception on here to be interesting, because it is kind of the opposite of who I am in real life. I will try to avoid drama at all costs, and usually downplay most things even when others wouldn't. The exception is when I see something that appears to be unfair or discriminatory. But I don't consider that "stirring shit up". YMMV

[merithyn]

I think the point of what you said is lost on you.  Here's what you said, broken down by sentence:

The math thing is still something that grates on my nerves because I've yet to find a logical, conclusive reason for why women, in general, have a harder time in math than men, and yet individual women can succeed so well in it and individual men can fail miserably.

So you understood my statistical point all along, and at the same time you have yet to find a logical conclusive reason why those two things can both be true?  Something is definitely lost on me here.

Obviously, it's not an XX thing, or it would be the same across the board for all men and women.

Again, it's another statement that inconsistent with truly understanding the point I made.  There is variance in nature, hence the bell curve and not bell singular point, so even in cases where there are fundamental gender differences, you are still unlikely have that difference manifested across the board for all men and women.

There is a reason this happens, and the only thing that I can imagine is the way that it is taught.

And this statement made me believe that you found all the previous points to be inconsistent with the existence of fundamental differences in math ability by gender, which is why I brought up the statistical point as a refutation.

I stand corrected, thoroughly. I can see why you said what you did. I DO understand what you're saying, even if my post shows otherwise.

[DGuller]

I stand corrected, thoroughly. I can see why you said what you did. I DO understand what you're saying, even if my post shows otherwise.

[merithyn]

My argument is that there is not an equality of opportunity.

The only support you've offered so far for this assertion is the outcome.

Okay. Here's an article that I came across earlier. It helps support my assertion.

The U.S. is catching up to Europe on gender equality
Posted by Max Fisher on October 25, 2012 at 11:06 am
  Text Size PrintReprintsShare:More »
FacebookTwitterStumbleUponDiggDeliciousWestern European countries have long led the world on gender equality, but the latest annual Gender Gap Report, just issued by the World Economic Forum, shows that the U.S. is making significant gains in an area where it has often lagged the Western world.

The annual WEF report grades countries on five metrics to measure the degree of gender equality or inequality: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. Countries are scored between 0.0 for most unequal, meaning that women have zero access, or 1.0 for fully equal.

The 2012 report ranks the U.S. 22nd in the world. The only non-Western nations that rank higher than the U.S., meaning their societies are more equal for women, are South Africa, Cuba, Lesotho, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. American society has been catching up to its historical leaders, as this chart of WEF gender equality scores across Western Europe since 2006 shows.



(Source: World Economic Forum)

I haven't included Scandinavian countries in this chart. Their scores are so high that it would make it to difficult to portray the U.S.'s relative gains against the rest of Western Europe. But what's also striking about this is the relatively poor gender equality in two of Western Europe's largest economies and more liberal societies: France and Italy.

In the broader European context, the U.S. is in fact a better place for women, judging by the WEF data, than is the majority of the continent. Here's a map of Europe, color-coded by gender equality. The blue countries are, according to the WEF data, more accessible societies for women than is the United States, with darker blue signifying better scores. The red countries are less friendly societies for women, with darker red signifying worse scores.



(Source: World Economic Forum)

This map tells a few different stories. The first is the striking degrees of inequality that remain in Western Europe. In the cases of Spain and France, that has worsened considerably over recent years. The second is the remarkable successes that women have found in Scandinavian countries, by far the most equal for women in the world. And perhaps the third would be the deep problems of gender inequality that persist in much of the former Soviet Union. I'll be looking more into several of these issues throughout the day, so check back.

[Malthus]

But that doesn't address at all the cause behind the different distributions, which is where the "how it's taught" argument is applied.

My personal belief is that it isn't innate ability(which is generally overrated IMO) nor how it's taught, but rather how it's valued, in particular among your peer group.

I think "innate ability" is less significant than "how its taught" and "how it's valued" for good average performance, but that the reverse is true for the true outliers at the edge.

In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

[CountDeMoney]

Timmay maps

[crazy canuck]

In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Isnt all you are saying is that one cannot be taught to be creative.  People can be given the opportunity to be creative but not everyone given that opportunity will succeed.

[derspiess]

My best friend's sister is to me the penultimate drama queen.  She will create a major controversy out of the slightest issue, and if none exists she'll actively stir shit up.  She does happen to be a redhead, FWIW.

Interesting. So by the above definition, you think that I'm a drama queen? You believe that I create a major controversy out of the slightest issue or if none exists at all?

Well, you did start this thread

I'm honestly not being defensive. I just find the perception on here to be interesting, because it is kind of the opposite of who I am in real life. I will try to avoid drama at all costs, and usually downplay most things even when others wouldn't. The exception is when I see something that appears to be unfair or discriminatory. But I don't consider that "stirring shit up". YMMV

I think a lot of us here say & do things on Languish that they wouldn't often say or do in the real world.  For example in the real world I don't often discuss politics or social issues, and if I do it's only with close friends & family.

[Malthus]

In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Isnt all you are saying is that one cannot be taught to be creative.  People can be given the opportunity to be creative but not everyone given that opportunity will succeed.

I guess that's true, depending on how you define "creative". I think everyone is creative to some extent, but to go beyond established wisdom and truly blaze new ground in fields like mathematics involves I think having a certain high level of innate ability.