girls , why don't you do science degrees (maths,compsci,engineering,physi cs)?

may i ask you , how did you prevail against the patriarchy trying to stop you fulfill your destiny? did you get any death threats ? were you spat on while trying to register?

What?!
No! I was free to choose what I want to do. There was no impositions or restrictions on me.
Everyone was happy for me!
Even my sis, doing Mechatronics engineering, was supported!

I hope that I've answered your ques. If not, don't hesitate!

Posted from TSR Mobile

QED. the TSR feminists won't be happy with you. you're supposed to be an oppressed victim and a gender role martyr .

Whoa whoa whoa, you're the one who's clearly just twisting what I say, yet somehow you're saying I'm the one with lack of analytical thinking...

I'm not saying gender differences are/are not sexist, or racist, however, what I'm saying is that before you can attribute a difference between groups to being 'nature', you have to eliminate potential 'nurture' factors too. You have to do this for any type of gene theory... I don't see why this is different in your head. Hence, psychology research trying to attribute other factors to the difference between men/women and races.

Yeah, my evolution argument seemed ridiculous, that's because I was taking the piss out of your 'abstract reasoning evolution' argument, because as I said, considering women clearly do have abstract reasoning, hence the women who do maths a-level (women definitely make up at least 40%, if not 50% of people taking maths a-level) don't do any worse than men. Yet they're less encouraged to go into it as a degree. The women who DO choose the degree itself are just as good, and there ARE more and more women going into it as a degree. As such, how is it so hard to believe that there may be just a gender-biased discourse in society? If you think there is a gender discourse that makes men more likely to be told to 'man up', then clearly there could be one that makes women more likely to blend into the background and purely look pretty. This isn't even me saying men are suppressing women, this is just me saying that society as a whole, so men and women, see this gender gap and so try to fit into their roles in it.

If you imagine a girl who does physics, society tends to think more of a slightly nerdy, not necessarily attractive looking girl, compared to one who does art. That, at least, is what we see in the TV shows. The difference is decreasing, however if you think of the 'nerds' in 90s american tv shows, you'll think of boys in checked shirts with thick rimmed/broken glasses but there are also occassionally girls, also unattracive. You won't think about attractive girls. But the attraction thing matters less to guys in some respects because they don't feel like they have to compete with other women to be more attractive. This isn't a nature thing, according to psychological theory, it's simply the only way women feel they can get ahead in society. A lot of the time, in the press, the few female polticians we have are scrutinised for the way they look rather than the way they talk. You don't see articles talking about how Barack Obama or any other male politician went out of the house daring to look dowdy and stressed because he wasn't wearing any makeup, but you do see it about women.

I teach an 11 year old girl chemistry and physics. Her ability is fine, completely fine, if not outstanding. She does everything I plan for a 1 hour lesson in 20 minutes or less. She actually likes it. However, she gets sent out of class all the time for not wearing the correct uniform, or having too much makeup, so she gets behind. Being so distracted with the way you look and feeling like you have to be to fit in with society, to the extent that it detracts from your education, is clearly an issue.

I was bullied for being a smart girl at school, and people chose to also take this out on my appearance. I didn't wear a lot of makeup or straighten my hair, I basically looked like a 12 year old little girl looks naturally. But that made people bully me, which was distracting in lessons. I remember the girls visibly studying to get A*s in science GCSE were often teased; guys weren't immune to it either, but they also didn't have to consider how they looked.

This is what I meant by the 'self-objectification'. However appearance isn't the only thing that the gender-bias encompasses. It's simply just a way of viewing life. There are gender-biases that it is far more likely come from environment rather than genes. I don't see why, if women ARE entirely capable of attaining the same standard in STEM subjects as men previous to degree level, they wouldn't go into the degree.

Also, there's something to be said for the boys being the loud and dominant ones and class clowns in lessons, dominating all the attention from the teacher including the help, and girls sitting in the background. This was certainly true at my school. This kind of thing clearly affects a subject that requires technique and taught methods more than it affects a subject that is somewhat intuitive.

See this: http://www.leics.gov.uk/girls_and_maths.doc

It's all over the education policy and rhetoric.

There's a REASON for women not seeing physics as a female subject, and I'm saying that's purely the discourse in society.

I wasn't saying all women who go into economics 'want to help other women', that's insane. I'm saying economics provides women with opportunities to get power and CEO positions, compared to other subjects, and medicine is a 'caring' degree. Physics, engineering etc don't provide these rare opportunities for women to get ahead. That may account for some of the difference.

i know there are exceptions, i am not talking about every single girl in the world. but the degrees i mentioned have very few girls in the compared to boys. so i want to hear from the girls (the vast majority) who didn't choose to pursue them , why did you avoid them?

No, seriously?!

No, not seriously.

No, seriously?!


Posted from TSR Mobile

Whoa whoa whoa, you're the one who's clearly just twisting what I say, yet somehow you're saying I'm the one with lack of analytical thinking...

I'm not saying gender differences are/are not sexist, or racist, however, what I'm saying is that before you can attribute a difference between groups to being 'nature', you have to eliminate potential 'nurture' factors too. You have to do this for any type of gene theory... I don't see why this is different in your head. Hence, psychology research trying to attribute other factors to the difference between men/women and races.

Yeah, my evolution argument seemed ridiculous, that's because I was taking the piss out of your 'abstract reasoning evolution' argument, because as I said, considering women clearly do have abstract reasoning, hence the women who do maths a-level (women definitely make up at least 40%, if not 50% of people taking maths a-level) don't do any worse than men. Yet they're less encouraged to go into it as a degree. The women who DO choose the degree itself are just as good, and there ARE more and more women going into it as a degree. As such, how is it so hard to believe that there may be just a gender-biased discourse in society? If you think there is a gender discourse that makes men more likely to be told to 'man up', then clearly there could be one that makes women more likely to blend into the background and purely look pretty. This isn't even me saying men are suppressing women, this is just me saying that society as a whole, so men and women, see this gender gap and so try to fit into their roles in it.

If you imagine a girl who does physics, society tends to think more of a slightly nerdy, not necessarily attractive looking girl, compared to one who does art. That, at least, is what we see in the TV shows. The difference is decreasing, however if you think of the 'nerds' in 90s american tv shows, you'll think of boys in checked shirts with thick rimmed/broken glasses but there are also occassionally girls, also unattracive. You won't think about attractive girls. But the attraction thing matters less to guys in some respects because they don't feel like they have to compete with other women to be more attractive. This isn't a nature thing, according to psychological theory, it's simply the only way women feel they can get ahead in society. A lot of the time, in the press, the few female polticians we have are scrutinised for the way they look rather than the way they talk. You don't see articles talking about how Barack Obama or any other male politician went out of the house daring to look dowdy and stressed because he wasn't wearing any makeup, but you do see it about women.

I teach an 11 year old girl chemistry and physics. Her ability is fine, completely fine, if not outstanding. She does everything I plan for a 1 hour lesson in 20 minutes or less. She actually likes it. However, she gets sent out of class all the time for not wearing the correct uniform, or having too much makeup, so she gets behind. Being so distracted with the way you look and feeling like you have to be to fit in with society, to the extent that it detracts from your education, is clearly an issue.

I was bullied for being a smart girl at school, and people chose to also take this out on my appearance. I didn't wear a lot of makeup or straighten my hair, I basically looked like a 12 year old little girl looks naturally. But that made people bully me, which was distracting in lessons. I remember the girls visibly studying to get A*s in science GCSE were often teased; guys weren't immune to it either, but they also didn't have to consider how they looked.

This is what I meant by the 'self-objectification'. However appearance isn't the only thing that the gender-bias encompasses. It's simply just a way of viewing life. There are gender-biases that it is far more likely come from environment rather than genes. I don't see why, if women ARE entirely capable of attaining the same standard in STEM subjects as men previous to degree level, they wouldn't go into the degree.

Also, there's something to be said for the boys being the loud and dominant ones and class clowns in lessons, dominating all the attention from the teacher including the help, and girls sitting in the background. This was certainly true at my school. This kind of thing clearly affects a subject that requires technique and taught methods more than it affects a subject that is somewhat intuitive.

See this: http://www.leics.gov.uk/girls_and_maths.doc

It's all over the education policy and rhetoric.

There's a REASON for women not seeing physics as a female subject, and I'm saying that's purely the discourse in society.

I wasn't saying all women who go into economics 'want to help other women', that's insane. I'm saying economics provides women with opportunities to get power and CEO positions, compared to other subjects, and medicine is a 'caring' degree. Physics, engineering etc don't provide these rare opportunities for women to get ahead. That may account for some of the difference.

ya really. any advice for the millions of girls blessed with amazing maths abilities and 130+ IQ's who choose to go into psychology/sociology/ ''insert word'' studies ?

Does medicine? How are we defining a science?

More mathematical than medicine at university

You're *still* misconstruing my point. I have never suggested that the entire difference between the genders is due to nature. I am simply taking the - extremely cautious - position that *some* of the difference is due to nature rather than nurture. In fact it is your position - that the difference is *all* due to nurture - that requires a systematic elimination of the possibility of nature.

My evidence for nature playing a role to some extent is: the greater variability of male test scores; the fact that IQ is highly heritable (i.e. predominantly genetic, not environmental); the clear difference in epidemiology of certain psychological issues between men and women (10x higher incidence of autism in males; far higher rate of dyslexia and learning difficulties). The onus is on you to explain these away somehow.

Also please take a look at this study. While not a direct explanation for why women are less likely to go into STEM, it refutes your position substantially (from the abstract: 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.).

I repeat: I am not questioning that there are *some* social factors involved for why women may pursue STEM less so than men. I'm simply claiming that *some* portion is also due to biological gender differences.

By the way, I think you should give the economics thing a rest here. You've shot your own argument in the foot, since all along you've been claiming that women are told by society not to go for power/leadership and this is reserved for men. Now you're claiming that the entire reason more women go into economics than theoretical physics is because women somehow overcome this and are power hungry? Inconsistency alert! Which do you think it is - that society turns off women from going for power, or that it doesn't and that explains why women have gone into economics more so than STEM? You can't have it both ways.

(additionally, you're completely wrong about economics providing more opportunities than physics/maths. In investment banking for example, STEM grads are very strongly represented, probably moreso than economics/finance grads. If women are truly seeking to be rich, powerful and successful, they would maximise their chances by studying a hard science at a top university)

Well I couldn't say that it's because of a lack of encouragement. In subjects where women are vastly 'underrepresented' you often find university departments bending over backwards to get those female applicants in (http://www.brunel.ac.uk/courses/pg/funding/scholarships-bursaries/women-in-engineering-scholarship-terms-and-conditions for example). We are actually bribing women to do these subjects. We have in fact gone way too far in terms of encouraging women to pursue STEM subjects.

See it ver much could be a situation of women just innately being on average less inclined to study in these areas.

I thought this was a good post, but I just wanted to draw your attention to this...

http://nypost.com/2008/12/23/o-my-bod-its-beach-barack/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/president-barack-obama-is-pec-tacular-shirtless-for-the-washingtonian/story-e6frev00-1225700321667

did/will you do a degree from the ones i listed? if not, then why?

I didn't mean that it NEVER happens. However, the difference here is that he's on a beach and it's a tacky news article, not actually a story which is about their political campaign. Often, you see interviews with political women regarding their campaign on national news and they go into 'so tell me, did you or did you not get a boob job'? (happened with Sarah Palin). You'd never hear them saying to Barack 'so tell me about your workout regime' or, even more personally, 'how big is your dick'? Though I'm sure many people are curious how well endowed he is...

See previous posts. While there is 'bribery' to get women into these studies, that matters very little when a girl, all their life, has been subjected to other factors that make her less likely to see physics, for example, as a 'girl's subject'.

It's like with positive discrimination trying to get certain races to go into university. Sometimes the society just doesn't bring people up that way. Hence we still see some underperformance or underrepresentaton of minority ethnic groups in many subjects and universities.

It's just they've been brought up in a society where everyone in science is male and white and children are often subject to being influenced by figureheads.

While there may be SOME very marginal innate factor, it cannot account for the large disparity we actually see today.