Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    Yes, the female Gates's and Wozniak's were too busy being pregnant and stopped from building computers from scratch by their parents.
    you cannot discount the fact that prob only 10% of the (western) population is capable of making seriously important technological achievment - the remainder of men spend time obsessed about getting laid, working out, waxing their chest and reading about cool cars - that is culturally driven

    Now young women on the other hand are culturally driven to be obsessed with makeup, fashion, shoes and dimwitted celeb gossip - where is the time to build the next supercomputer?

    id argue that cultural pressures on young girls is far higher than young males.

    in societies far more oppressive than ours - say islamic ones - women have zero leway at all to be intellectual thinkers - they (mainly) are conditioned to find a husband as sooon as possible
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cakeymatey)
    This is a totally non-baffling issue. Women haven't in the past been prevalent in the echelons of any field bar nursing because of outright social prejudices which projected a blueprint within which women had to fit. It was beyond contemplation that men misunderstood the capabilities of women.

    Now that those notions are for all intents and purposes banished to the past, the practical impediments for women are children and family. That is not because women's role is to bear children or raise a family. But it is an evidenced fact that the female psyche is more inclined to value raising children and family than male. For most, balancing that with the requisite professional dedication to carving out a leading position in any profession is impossible. It is certainly not something I, as a male, think I would be capable of.

    So credit to every woman who does succeed. Because that achievement is worth so much more than the majority of her male colleagues.
    Women have certainly had a huge influence in technology, or at least computer science - the idea that women don't belong in computing is relatively recent and their influence has been waning over the past decade or two - explain.

    An interesting perspective followed by a metric ****tonne of groups created solely to help women into the industry (and obviously not working): http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...0-years-female
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laomedeia)
    There is a reason for the words "mankind" or "manmade". I would even put money on it that if a split-arse beat lance armstrong to be the first human on the moon, they would still classify it as a small step for man. Men may very well be better intellectually and at driving, but at everything else women are much better. Proof of this can be found in the porn industry, lesbian porn is far more popular than man-love stuff.
    What are you on about? Have you not been taught how to put down your thoughts coherently?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    It's worth noting that academia, at least for the last 50 years, has certainly been a meritocratic field - to the point where women now make up 55-60% of university entrants - but they are still underrepresented at the pinnacle i.e. Nobel Prize winners. This is particularly of note considering that one of the fields, 'Physiology and Medicine', has for a few decades now had equal or more than equal representation of women.
    This is in no way true for the sciences. There have always been and still are structural inequalities in academia that discriminate against women at all stages of a scientific research career that see women less likely to get jobs, have papers published, be promoted, put on important committees, invited to speak at conferences etc. It's a widely recognised problem within academia that thankfully is being dealt with, at least in this country, with national schemes like Athena Swan and departments all over the country launching their own initiatives to improve things - though there is also movement at the European level with the EC introducing equality improvements to its Sixth Framework Programme.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imtelling)
    White males, with east asians second, have invented virtually everything.

    So, maybe its not just a gender thing?
    Really? inventors of decimal mathematics? the solar calender? were these white males/ east asian?

    youre not exactly Einstein are you...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    Really? inventors of decimal mathematics? the solar calender? were these white males/ east asian?

    youre not exactly Einstein are you...

    I never said they invented everything, just most things.

    John Napier, a Scottish guy, invented decimal point mathematics.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imtelling)
    White males, with east asians second, have invented virtually everything.

    So, maybe its not just a gender thing?
    People have proposed a few theories to explain that, involving geography mainly. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a genetic component too though. We should be sceptical of any "scientist" or philosopher who thinks it is important either way. Individual success should be celebrated, not irrational "racial success", which has led to genocide and oppression.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99DeadBaboons)
    I do, I admittedly wasn't representing myself too clearly from one post to another. I'm glad we cleared that part up.

    I've seen the statistics regarding IQs and, while it seems that males tend to perform more commonly in terms of very high intelligence, I don't think that it's enough to deem genius as "almost exclusively" male. I also accept your point that if this is the case, it may explain the apparent inbalance in male to female success in those areas, but I can't accept "independent of considerations of patriarchy or oppression" because... well, because we don't exactly have a control group for that. I fully accept what you're saying about men on average having more scores in the "very high" region but when everything from education, to testing to social norms are a part of the same society derived from blatant patriarchy, it isn't easy to see how clear cut those results might be. I'm not saying that things are skewered. I'm only saying I don't know.
    I would also argue that the testosterone- "risk taking" argument, while it may account for a certain amount of male success, that seems to be an argument more for male success alone rather than male genius. In fact, it implies that on average, if males are taking more risks, then surely some with lower IQs will manage to succeed. Given the original title of the thread, doesn't the risk-taking argument suggest that male success can't be tied exclusively to genius?
    I think there is a point where claiming that tests are derived from patriarchal norms is plaintive, to be honest. IQ tests are designed the way they are to ensure validity and reliability, from what I understand. In this context validity means they are good indicators of future success in e.g. education and career, and reliability means that they output similar scores over repeat attempts. There's nothing inherently patriarchal about that; nor about testing maths ability at school level, as in one of the studies above.

    I think you make a very good point with regards to success not necessarily being an indicator of latent genius. Can't argue with that one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imtelling)
    I never said they invented everything, just most things.

    John Napier, a Scottish guy, invented decimal point mathematics.
    I think they were referring to counting in base 10, not decimal fractions. :lol:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imtelling)
    I never said they invented everything, just most things.
    no they didnt .
    (Original post by imtelling)
    John Napier, a Scottish guy, invented decimal point mathematics.
    no he didnt, try looking back approx 2000 years :rolleyes:

    wow is this really a forum for students??:confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    I don't understand why in an age where women are more educated than men they still contribute so little at the top of every single field there is, whether we're talking quantum physics, chess or Silicon Valley. There isn't a single female founder in none of the sites you use on a daily basis. Everything you are using right now : phone, tablet, laptop, PC, internet or this very site were invented, innovated, designed or started by men.


    Why do men dominate every single intellectual field with such utter brutality? Maybe you'll say society stops girls from being into maths and so on : so why are the best artists, chefs, hairdressers and fashion designers men even in 2014 ?
    Give it 20 years, the majority of medical/dental and law students are female. Girls perform better at school nowadays.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    I think there is a point where claiming that tests are derived from patriarchal norms is plaintive, to be honest. IQ tests are designed the way they are to ensure validity and reliability, from what I understand. In this context validity means they are good indicators of future success in e.g. education and career, and reliability means that they output similar scores over repeat attempts. There's nothing inherently patriarchal about that; nor about testing maths ability at school level, as in one of the studies above.

    I think you make a very good point with regards to success not necessarily being an indicator of latent genius. Can't argue with that one.
    Oh, I know, believe me I'd be rolling my eyes a little if someone said that IQ tests were inherently gender biased. What I'm really trying to say is that there's little proof that some contributing factor isn't born of societal prejudice and that's something that only hindsight will likely reveal to later generations.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    People have proposed a few theories to explain that, involving geography mainly. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a genetic component too though. We should be sceptical of any "scientist" or philosopher who thinks it is important either way. Individual success should be celebrated, not irrational "racial success", which has lead to genocide and oppression.

    Lots of things have led to genocide and oppression: Governments, Socialism, religion.....not talk about these things either?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imtelling)
    Lots of things have led to genocide and oppression: Governments, Socialism, religion.....not talk about these things either?
    I would and do talk about those things. Scepticism is key. It destroys racism, fascism, communism and religion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    I think they were referring to counting in base 10, not decimal fractions. :lol:
    decimal fractions too, which have history going back 2000 years also, inc very the principle of using a decimal point (although the chinse claim some input in this field too)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by betaglucowhat)
    This is in no way true for the sciences. There have always been and still are structural inequalities in academia that discriminate against women at all stages of a scientific research career that see women less likely to get jobs, have papers published, be promoted, put on important committees, invited to speak at conferences etc. It's a widely recognised problem within academia that thankfully is being dealt with, at least in this country, with national schemes like Athena Swan and departments all over the country launching their own initiatives to improve things - though there is also movement at the European level with the EC introducing equality improvements to its Sixth Framework Programme.
    What are the structural inequalities? Is it mostly to do with lack of flexibility for time off for pregnancy/post-pregnancy? If so, how do these schemes propose to address that problem? If not, what else do these schemes take aim at?

    Do you personally believe also that academia remains strongly biased against women?

    Genuine questions .
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It should be 50/50, I suppose. It's down to the person, and if they are recognised.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99DeadBaboons)
    Oh, I know, believe me I'd be rolling my eyes a little if someone said that IQ tests were inherently gender biased. What I'm really trying to say is that there's little proof that some contributing factor isn't born of societal prejudice and that's something that only hindsight will likely reveal to later generations.
    It's certainly possible but I find it hard to come up with a plausible societal/environmental explanation for why women and men would do similar on average but there would be large differences at the tails of the distribution.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meenglishnogood)
    decimal fractions too, which have history going back 2000 years also, inc very the principle of using a decimal point (although the chinse claim some input in this field too)
    You are nit picking though. Imtelling forgot to mention south Asians, who invented loads. We still need to explain why Africans and Americans and Australians invented relatively little. But I suspect imtelling is cynically trying to push a racist agenda.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    It's certainly possible but I find it hard to come up with a plausible societal/environmental explanation for why women and men would do similar on average but there would be large differences at the tails of the distribution.
    I agree. I find it to be a little of a fish and water situation really. If such factors play a part, it's incredibly difficult to recognise it from within.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.