Bias against Female Scientists???

superluminal said:
I have no idea. I do know, however, that it has inflamed and accentuated the issue racial of "equality". Maybe this is a good thing...


Yes.


So you see, as a male, I don't know what this means. Do you have some example of how the teaching of something like newtonian physics currently has a gender approach to it? I seriously don't know.
Click to expand...

Its the way that science and math is taught in schools.

Here is an example:

http://www.nd.edu/~frswrite/issues/2002-2003/feldman.shtml
 
samcdkey said:
Its the way that science and math is taught in schools.

Here is an example:

http://www.nd.edu/~frswrite/issues/2002-2003/feldman.shtml
Click to expand...
Ok sam. I have some comments on this article. There's a lot in there, but the thing that strikes me is the assumption that the overwhelming gravitation of boys vs girls to technical areas is due to gender bias. This 'subtle' gender bias is barely identified in the article.

While the teacher did not seem to show preferential treatment, in this particular classroom males were more likely to speak out, and while there were three or four males that were consistently participating, only one female spoke up on numerous occasions. While this does not necessarily reflect bias on part of the current teacher, it could reflect previous experiences of the students in their math and science education, in which the girls have already been silenced because of earlier exposure to detrimental teaching methods.
Click to expand...
And it could mean that girls are less agressive than boys.

"When boys have trouble with a math problem, they are more likely to think the problem is hard but stay with it. When girls have trouble, they think they are stupid and tend to give up" (63). This can at least partly be attributed to differing qualities of responses teachers give to males and females. When boys come upon a challenge, they are encouraged to work it out for themselves, whereas if a girl encounters a similar problem, the teacher will often simply tell her how to work it out rather than having her figure it out for herself. This promotes a sense of helplessness and encourages the girl to think that she cannot "do" math, science, or whatever the particular subject may be.
Click to expand...
Did you notice that nowhere in the article is the idea that innate gender differences might have some effect, no matter how small?

Are you aware of a study that demonstrates this? I've been looking for it on the web with little success. It goes like this:

Infants, as soon as they are able to pull a srting, are seated in front of a screen. There is a small handle on a string that they can pull. They soon learn that pulling the string causes pictures on the screen to change or animate. At one point the researchers disable the picture function such that pulling the string no longer has an effect. The males begin pulling the string with more and more persistence, becoming steadily more agitated. The females pull the string far fewer times and then abandon the effort completely and begin to cry.

My point here is that gender discrimination is far from proven as the primary cause of girls performance in certain subjects.
 
samcdkey said:
That's just operant conditioning, we do it with rats all the time.
Click to expand...
"Just" operative conditioning? I know what it is. Explain the gender difference if you please.
 
Here's one that has an infant study but there are no strings attached
4.gif


http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/spelke2005.pdf
 
superluminal said:
"Just" operative conditioning? I know what it is. Explain the gender difference if you please.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how this affects aptitude for science; do you mean to say that playing with a truck shows an aptitude for technology while playing with a doll does not?

How do you reach this conclusion?
 
Last edited:
samcdkey said:
I still don't see how this affects aptitude for science; do you mean to say that playing with a truck shows an aptitude for technology while an playing with a doll does not?

How do you reach this conclusion?
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, wait. Sammy. sam. samster. I'm not sure how many times I can emphasize this; I am in no way implying a difference in the aptitudes, especially of individuals, for one subject over another. I keep talking about tempermental predispositions. Again, the example of my daughter - she excels at math and science, but want's nothing to do with them as a career. It's the theater (british accent for emphasis) for her. Playing with a truck definitely indicates an interest in "gadgets" vs playing with a doll.

This boy may be far more likely to grow up with an interest in mechanical things and choose a career in technology. While the girl may grow up with no interest in technology whatsoever. It's more about interest than aptitude. So that girls who grow up with a great interest in physics, will be for more likely to choose a science career than a boy who grows up with an interest in culinary arts (although he may choose chemistry over chefistry).

Is the response of girls in science classes explainable as a lack of interest as much as subtle gender bias? I have evidence that says the former is certain and the latter is almost as certain.

What say you madame?
 
samcdkey said:
Read the other paper.
Click to expand...
I read it even before you posted it! I know of Ms. Spelke. I believe she is considered a "radical" in this area and has an agenda. I can't say I trust her motives all that much. Despite that, I agree that aptitudes may vary very little between genders. It's temperments and behavioral predispositions that concern me.
 
superluminal said:
Wait, wait, wait. Sammy. sam. samster. I'm not sure how many times I can emphasize this; I am in no way implying a difference in the aptitudes, especially of individuals, for one subject over another. I keep talking about tempermental predispositions. Again, the example of my daughter - she excels at math and science, but want's nothing to do with them as a career. It's the theater (british accent for emphasis) for her. Playing with a truck definitely indicates an interest in "gadgets" vs playing with a doll.

This boy may be far more likely to grow up with an interest in mechanical things and choose a career in technology. While the girl may grow up with no interest in technology whatsoever. It's more about interest than aptitude. So that girls who grow up with a great interest in physics, will be for more likely to choose a science career than a boy who grows up with an interest in culinary arts (although he may choose chemistry over chefistry).

Is the response of girls in science classes explainable as a lack of interest as much as subtle gender bias? I have evidence that says the former is certain and the latter is almost as certain.

What say you madame?
Click to expand...

So why do you think it an and/or situation?

Interest can be due to many things; it can change over time; one may choose a career due to financial reasons rather than aptitude, because the school is near, more accessible, the course is easy to complete, the chances for employment are good, whatever.

People who decide to go into science or technology generally have both an interest and aptitude; since it has been seen that both interest and perceptions of aptitude can be affected by social conditioning and learning environment, does that not indicate that the interest is determined to a large degree by what a person thinks he/she is capable of?

e.g. how many women could pilot an Airbus 380 50 years ago?
And yet I have a female pilot friend who is barely 5 feet 2 inches and the hardest part for her in simulation is pulling back on the brake! Do you think 50 years ago she would have been considered fit for the job ?
 
superluminal said:
I read it even before you posted it! I know of Ms. Spelke. I believe she is considered a "radical" in this area and has an agenda. I can't say I trust her motives all that much. Despite that, I agree that aptitudes may vary very little between genders. It's temperments and behavioral predispositions that concern me.
Click to expand...

I am a radical too and I definitely have an agenda! :D
 
samcdkey said:
So why do you think it an and/or situation?

Interest can be due to many things; it can change over time; one may choose a career due to financial reasons rather than aptitude, because the school is near, more accessible, the course is easy to complete, the chances for employment are good, whatever.

People who decide to go into science or technology generally have both an interest and aptitude; since it has been seen that both interest and perceptions of aptitude can be affected by social conditioning and learning environment, does that not indicate that the interest is determined to a large degree by what a person thinks he/she is capable of?

e.g. how many women could pilot an Airbus 380 50 years ago?
And yet I have a female pilot friend who is barely 5 feet 2 inches and the hardest part for her in simulation is pulling back on the brake! Do you think 50 years ago she would have been considered fit for the job ?
Click to expand...
Yes to all of that. But I'm still trying to get the idea of predispositions across. Taking the average population, and the data that suggest that girls, on average, are inherently less likely to be attracted to gizmos, I would predict exactly what we see. Far fewer females, as a percentage of the population, in science and engineering fields. I do not disagree that gender bias plays a role. I disagree on the degree to which you seem to think it does.
 
superluminal said:
Yes to all of that. But I'm still trying to get the idea of predispositions across. Taking the average population, and the data that suggest that girls, on average, are inherently less likely to be attracted to gizmos, I would predict exactly what we see. Far fewer females, as a percentage of the population, in science and engineering fields. I do not disagree that gender bias plays a role. I disagree on the degree to which you seem to think it does.
Click to expand...


You are an old fuddy duddy; you really should visit Asia or start your sentences about women saying "American women are...."

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2001/01-06-21.html
 
samcdkey said:
You are an old fuddy duddy; you really should visit Asia or start your sentences about women saying "American women are...."

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/2001/01-06-21.html
Click to expand...
"fuddy duddy"? I'm a goddamned hippy compared to other men my age. :eek:

So I read your link. It reminds me of my wife, who (more info than you may want, about to follow) gets turned on by tools and gadgets. In reality, it's about the effect of spending money on expensive tools and gadgets that's the stimulator. Explains the observations of your article nicely. Do we need to get into the OBVIOUS genetic predisposition of women to spend my money frivolously? :bugeye: :m:
 
superluminal said:
"fuddy duddy"? I'm a goddamned hippy compared to other men my age. :eek:

So I read your link. It reminds me of my wife, who (more info than you may want, about to follow) gets turned on by tools and gadgets. In reality, it's about the effect of spending money on expensive tools and gadgets that's the stimulator. Explains the observations of your article nicely. Do we need to get into the OBVIOUS genetic predisposition of women to spend my money frivolously? :bugeye: :m:
Click to expand...

I spend my own money, ye olde FD!

So you cannot generalize on that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top