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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    I'll have to stand fast I'm affraid.

    Your argument up to now: There is no such thing as gender roles and it is completely up to the individual.

    My argument up to now: There certainly are traits relating to gender and therefore roles in which males and females fit in more comfortably.

    There are individuals who may show more characteristics that you'd expect with the opposite gender which you percieve as proving your argument. I have suggested that these anomolies are advantageous in bringing diversity to any role or bringing one set of qualities to the other, but the base line seperation between the genders exists.

    What you have failed to do is explain to me the reason for there being apparent patterns between genders and the roles they take up. You have said that it is purely due to societal pressures yet you ignored my explanation as to why societal pressures come about and you disregarded it and myself as purely sexist.

    Your argument has been abysmal and you have been stringently closed minded, ordering me to come up with examples that fit your criteria, criteria that is impossible to meet and that have absolutely to logic nor reasoning behind them.
    Now you're intentionally mis-representing everything I've actually put forward. Wonderful.
    And you are claiming to have said where social pressures come from etc. And can't actually give examples to a more than reasonable criteria.

    I think you're trolling to a certain level and most certainly a sexist. And until you will actually engage with what I say, as I have actually done with you, I can't hold a discussion with you. And it's been painful to do it so far.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    Ok attack my use of terminology however my adversary is claiming that it is not related to sex at all and that is what I'm arguing against.
    Terminology is important in making arguments.
    And I don't think she is. I think she made the same conclusion as me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    What it essentially boils down to is this:
    -Yes, men and women may well be born with different inherent inclinations on average.
    -No, we cannot use animals of different species as a model for the behaviour of the larger and more complex human brain, and in any case I struggle to think of a species which evolved under similar circumstances to ours (the development of tools to combat the environment as opposed to hard skin/poison etc. etc.)
    -You cannot look at a dominant pattern of gender occupancy in human society and say that this must be a natural inclination because humanity represents a large sample. There are incredible homogenising factors in human society such as dictatorships, law, and tradition that make it impossible to look at any given pattern and call it natural without first subtracting all of the artificial factors.
    What about a more complex brain means that there is absolutely no similarity in behaviour? Behaviour may therefore be inherently more complex and include a plentiful number of variences yet the result is to solve the same problem, so why can there possible be nothing to learn from comparison with other species?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Now you're intentionally mis-representing everything I've actually put forward. Wonderful.
    And you are claiming to have said where social pressures come from etc. And can't actually give examples to a more than reasonable criteria.

    I think you're trolling to a certain level and most certainly a sexist. And until you will actually engage with what I say, as I have actually done with you, I can't hold a discussion with you. And it's been painful to do it so far.
    :facepalm:

    Troll and a sexist huh?

    You've put nothing of note forward, you simply ask for me to put something wildly obsured forward then act like you're collecting the bloody world cup when I show how impossible it is to meet your unreasonable position.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    What about a more complex brain means that there is absolutely no similarity in behaviour?
    I'm not saying it means there is absolutely no similarity, I'm saying it's a disruptive factor in comparing ourselves to other species, and I explained why in the part of my argument you didn't respond to.
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    -You cannot look at a dominant pattern of gender occupancy in human society and say that this must be a natural inclination because humanity represents a large sample. There are incredible homogenising factors in human society such as dictatorships, law, and tradition that make it impossible to look at any given pattern and call it natural without first subtracting all of the artificial factors.
    (Original post by Mockery)
    Behaviour may therefore be inherently more complex and include a plentiful number of variences yet the result is to solve the same problem, so why can there possible be nothing to learn from comparison with other species?
    Because it is fallacious and does not work, as explained above, and because even if it were effective, it's a roundabout way of solving a problem that can be approached much more directly and effectively by evaluating human behaviour as it is, from an objective perspective, by researching our brains and society, without any preconceptions derived from what is considered 'natural'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I'm not saying it means there is absolutely no similarity, I'm saying it's a disruptive factor in comparing ourselves to other species, and I explained why in the part of my argument you didn't respond to.


    Because it is fallacious and does not work, as explained above, and because even if it were effective, it's a roundabout way of solving a problem that can be approached much more directly and effectively by evaluating human behaviour as it is, from an objective perspective, by researching our brains and society, without any preconceptions derived from what is considered 'natural'.
    Laws, traditions, morals all have their foundations built of the very basic behaviours and traits of us as a species. If you look at other great apes you will see similar social and societal constructs as you see in our society that will no doubt effect behaviour and roles in their circle. I'm not talking about putting a woodlouse on a petri dish and tracking its movement between moist and dry areas :lol:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mockery)
    Laws, traditions, morals all have their foundations built of the very basic behaviours and traits of us as a species. If you look at other great apes you will see similar social and societal constructs as you see in our society that will no doubt effect behaviour and roles in their circle. I'm not talking about putting a woodlouse on a petri dish and tracking its movement between moist and dry areas :lol:
    You're trying to claim something is entirely reflective of natural factors which clearly isn't. Is North Korea natural, can we explain how North Korea arose purely from natural factors? If all of a certain profession in North Korea was made out of women would that be because those women were naturally inclined to be good at it? Hell, I don't even need such an extreme example. Much of the history of the twentieth century was us removing segregations that were artificially imposed; apartheid, women's suffrage, the expectation of women to be home makers and their inability to get degrees. There was nothing about these activities that was justified based on the inherent birth inclinations of our species.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynang)
    Fair point with the link, but I would argue that the list of male scientists before the 21st century would be considerably longer

    I agree that what science needs is the finest minds possible, irrespective of gender. However, we need to ensure that these minds are available, and inclined to enter science. We NEED women to be scientists, as half of the intelligence of the human race is held by women. Hence, if women do not enter science just as frequently as men do, then we are squandering a set of brilliant minds. Sadly, whilst female scientists did exist before the 21st century, they were far less frequent than male scientists; this wasted generations of potentially brilliant scientists.

    That is what these grants are about; knocking down the old traditions of male dominance, to stop us throwing away brilliant minds in the future. Hence, whilst these grants are fundamentally a bit unfair, they are needed - at least for now. Hopefully the time will come when they are not!
    Yes, the list for male scientists before the 21st century would be considerably longer than the female version.

    And yes I absolutely agree that these minds have to be 'available' and 'inclined'. I also completely agree that we potentially squandered great minds.

    However, I do not agree that these grants are necessary or good. To try to bring about equality through inequality surely cannot work. I also disagree that they are 'needed' - they are not. Those who are of sufficient caliber, as far as I can see, will get an offer. If the women applying for these scholarships wish to be treated as scientists, and as equals, then surely going through an un-equal mechanism to get to be a scientist is problematic. All that will happen is that male scientists will grow to resent these scholarships which is not going to help anyone.

    http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergrad...ly/statistics/

    In the above link under 'Undergraduate Admissions Statistics 2011 cycle' it shows that women do indeed apply less than their male counterparts to STEM subjects. If one looks at page 11 of the document it shows that although there are less female applicants for engineering they have a better percentage success rate than the male applicants. In medicine the odds are about equal as well. The statistics for computer science are however very one sided, yes, but (and this applies to the above examples as well) the caliber of those students are not known, by us. The document is therefore of limited use but it does show that there is not exactly 'male dominance'.

    I therefore completely dispute that there is a 'NEED' for these grants and scholarships. If women wish to be scientists then they should show that they have the caliber and get their place/ offer/ what-have-you on merit. I can also imagine it is quite demeaning to current female scientists for these kind of grants. They got there through hard work and through their own merit, not a charity hand-out (I use that loosely but in my opinion the scholarships seem rather similar to charity hand-outs).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    In America they have scholarships that are only for black students. I'm sure there'd be outrage if there was a scholarship that was only for white students. I agree with you, it is discrimination and it's wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muppet Science)
    Yes, the list for male scientists before the 21st century would be considerably longer than the female version.

    And yes I absolutely agree that these minds have to be 'available' and 'inclined'. I also completely agree that we potentially squandered great minds.

    However, I do not agree that these grants are necessary or good. To try to bring about equality through inequality surely cannot work. I also disagree that they are 'needed' - they are not. Those who are of sufficient caliber, as far as I can see, will get an offer. If the women applying for these scholarships wish to be treated as scientists, and as equals, then surely going through an un-equal mechanism to get to be a scientist is problematic. All that will happen is that male scientists will grow to resent these scholarships which is not going to help anyone.

    http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergrad...ly/statistics/

    In the above link under 'Undergraduate Admissions Statistics 2011 cycle' it shows that women do indeed apply less than their male counterparts to STEM subjects. If one looks at page 11 of the document it shows that although there are less female applicants for engineering they have a better percentage success rate than the male applicants. In medicine the odds are about equal as well. The statistics for computer science are however very one sided, yes, but (and this applies to the above examples as well) the caliber of those students are not known, by us. The document is therefore of limited use but it does show that there is not exactly 'male dominance'.

    I therefore completely dispute that there is a 'NEED' for these grants and scholarships. If women wish to be scientists then they should show that they have the caliber and get their place/ offer/ what-have-you on merit. I can also imagine it is quite demeaning to current female scientists for these kind of grants. They got there through hard work and through their own merit, not a charity hand-out (I use that loosely but in my opinion the scholarships seem rather similar to charity hand-outs).
    I would argue that the problem is perhaps no longer the acutal male-dominance of science, but the percieved male dominance. With the exception of Marie Curie, I don't think I have had to study any female scientists throughout GCSE and A Level, yet the list of male scientists my courses have covered is very extensive (Watson, Crick, Calvin, Krebs, Bunsen, Faraday, Newton, Joule, Planck, and Dirac off the top of my head.)

    This sends a distinct message of 'science is for men' - not through any intentions of the exam board, but just through the fact that, in the past, science very much was perceived as a male endeavour. For example, one of my friends geandmothers played a huge role in discovering and confirming the structure of benzene, yet has remained almost unknown for this work; until recently the wikipedia page for benzene made no mention of her!

    I agree that fighting inequality with inequality seems counterproductive to the extreme, but we must remember that these grants are not harming male students, only helping female students. Therefore, these grants are not seeking to reassess the balance by discouraging male students, but by encouraging female students; surely this can only be a good thing! Through these grants, we end up with a much larger group of potential scientists than we would otherwise have. These grants are not going to discourage male students; anyone who would be put off a career in science simply because they couldn't apply for a few grants probably isn't that interested in science anyway!

    If grants did not exist that men could apply for, then we would have a problem. However, the vast majority of grants are open to both men and women. Hence, the existance of a few grants to encourage female scientists only is irritating for men, but needed in the long run to remove the perceptions of male dominance in science.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    because women are more intelligent than men and their input into the above fields would lead to great discoveries. women already do the things you mentioned like nursing well enough so we don't need men doing it too.
    You are so full of ****.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynang)
    I would argue that the problem is perhaps no longer the acutal male-dominance of science, but the percieved male dominance. With the exception of Marie Curie, I don't think I have had to study any female scientists throughout GCSE and A Level, yet the list of male scientists my courses have covered is very extensive (Watson, Crick, Calvin, Krebs, Bunsen, Faraday, Newton, Joule, Planck, and Dirac off the top of my head.)

    This sends a distinct message of 'science is for men' - not through any intentions of the exam board, but just through the fact that, in the past, science very much was perceived as a male endeavour. For example, my step grandfathers mother, Kathlene Lonsdale, played a huge role in discovering and confirming the structure of benzene, yet has remained almost unknown for this work; until recently the wikipedia page for benzene made no mention of her!

    I agree that fighting inequality with inequality seems counterproductive to the extreme, but we must remember that these grants are not harming male students, only helping female students. Therefore, these grants are not seeking to reassess the balance by discouraging male students, but by encouraging female students; surely this can only be a good thing! Through these grants, we end up with a much larger group of potential scientists than we would otherwise have. These grants are not going to discourage male students; anyone who would be put off a career in science simply because they couldn't apply for a few grants probably isn't that interested in science anyway!

    If grants did not exist that men could apply for, then we would have a problem. However, the vast majority of grants are open to both men and women. Hence, the existance of a few grants to encourage female scientists only is irritating for men, but needed in the long run to remove the perceptions of male dominance in science.
    True, science was a male dominated discipline until relatively recently but I still cannot agree to allowing grants, even if they are few in number, for female only applicants.

    If your aim to to get more female science students then why not show off science to youngsters (slightly concerned I sound like my father now :s) so both boys and girls can become interested by science. Not by creating these financial incentives. I also think that creating these grants is somewhat condescending, it seems to be saying that we will give you a leg up against your competition (by definition male scientists).

    I wonder what Kathlene Lonsdale would say about these grants. Whether she would encourage them, or loathe them as presumably she had to research during the 'male domination' days. Personally I would find it condescending by hey, this is only the ramblings of an 18 year old who has spent the last three hours deriving physics formulae :lolwut:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Positive discrimination isn't good. It just perpetuates the myth that men and women are necessarily different.
    Men and Women are equal but different. Men are far stronger physically speaking. Women harbour and give birth to children, and spent a portion of time looking after a child in it's very early infancy.

    I support scholarships like this for women. As a guy, i think more women need to get into scientific degree's. They are not proportionally represented at all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Men and Women are equal but different. Men are far stronger physically speaking. Women harbour and give birth to children, and spent a portion of time looking after a child in it's very early infancy.

    I support scholarships like this for women. As a guy, i think more women need to get into scientific degree's. They are not proportionally represented at all.
    Really, men are stronger than women?
    Please, do tell me how weak my girlfriend I are.

    And men can look after children after birth as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Really, men are stronger than women?
    Please, do tell me how weak my girlfriend I are.

    And men can look after children after birth as well.
    This is not meant to be a degrading kind of comment. Men are biologically stronger than women. We make way more testosterone and have on average far bigger frames.

    Women have breasts and chemicals released around childbirth or during it which not only allows them to feed the child and give it comfort and protection, but also allows the woman to want to 'feel' like doing it as well. This all allows the maximal survival of the child.

    Our Brains are also different if i have been taught correctly.

    Men can help during these early stages, but a woman must take part in this all if she can, for her own development and for the childs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    This is not meant to be a degrading kind of comment. Men are biologically stronger than women. We make way more testosterone and have on average far bigger frames.

    Women have breasts and chemicals released around childbirth or during it which not only allows them to feed the child and give it comfort and protection, but also allows the woman to want to 'feel' like doing it as well. This all allows the maximal survival of the child.

    Men can help during these early stages, but a woman must take part in this all if she can, for her own development and for the childs.
    Wow. Just wow.

    What do averages have to do with anything?
    If not all men...actually 'll go beyond that, if not all healthy men are stronger than all healthy women then the sex divide does not work.
    Some men have more testosterone than some women. But some women have more than some men.

    Not all women have that, and many have postnatal depression.
    Sometimes it would be better for a man than a woman to look after a child. So again, that can't be based simply on sex.

    And I don't even know how to approach the idiocy of your last paragraph.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Wow. Just wow.

    What do averages have to do with anything?
    If not all men...actually 'll go beyond that, if not all healthy men are stronger than all healthy women then the sex divide does not work.
    Some men have more testosterone than some women. But some women have more than some men.

    Not all women have that, and many have postnatal depression.
    Sometimes it would be better for a man than a woman to look after a child. So again, that can't be based simply on sex.

    And I don't even know how to approach the idiocy of your last paragraph.
    It is a scientific fact that men (on the whole) are stronger than women. I wrote 'on average' to be more open minded to the fact that some women *may* be stronger than some men. But the majority of men are far stronger physically. This is not even debatable In addition, this is not a derogatory comment i am making against women, it's just a plain fact.

    I fully appreciate that women can get post-natal depression, and a husband needs to help out regardless. However, women have chemicals released during this process which makes them more 'caring', in addition , women produce breast milk with substances key for a new-born child. It has actually been noted that new-born babies need 'love' and 'comfort', and a mother who has chemicals which make her want to hold her child suffices the child's needs.

    Men and Women are equal in the humanistic and moral sense. However, we are different inherently from the biological point of view, from our chromosomes, our brains, our hormones, our emotions and frequency of them , and our biological roles.

    My last line stated that men can help and i believe they should help, but for a woman who has just given birth to a child , in addition to the hormones produced in a woman that makes her want to hold the child, it is better for the child and the mother that they get time to bond during these early stages and periods. This is mother-offspring bonding time is present in so species in the animal kingdom.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    It is a scientific fact that men (on the whole) are stronger than women. I wrote 'on average' to be more open minded to the fact that some women *may* be stronger than some men. But the majority of men are far stronger physically. This is not even debatable In addition, this is not a derogatory comment i am making against women, it's just a plain fact.
    So to put it another way: Whilst most men are stronger than most women, it is not a sex divide.
    Glad we agree and men aren't stronger than women.


    I fully appreciate that women can get post-natal depression, and a husband needs to help out regardless. However, women have chemicals released during this process which makes them more 'caring', in addition , women produce breast milk with substances key for a new-born child. It has actually been noted that new-born babies need 'love' and 'comfort', and a mother who has chemicals which make her want to hold her child suffices the child's needs.
    Many women don't have a release of chemicals. And the child's need can also be met by a male, as long as the male also gives the same comfort and need as anyone else who deeply loves the child in a parental fashion.

    Men and Women are equal in the humanistic and moral sense. However, we are different inherently from the biological point of view, from our chromosomes, our brains, our hormones, our emotions and frequency of them , and our biological roles.
    Chrmosomes? Men can have XX and women can have XY.
    The brain one never gets old, every so often it's said all women have a particular difference in their brains. And then that's shown to be false. And then it happens again. One of the best myths was that women have 'smaller' brains then men.
    Hormones? Wrong again. Many women do have different ones to many men, but many have similar levels, there's a big over lap. So again, not a sex divide.
    Emotions and frequency of them? Well, I'll just bow down to your superior knowledge of my emotions oh might penis bearer.

    And biological roles? If you're about to tell me that at any point I should be staying home to look after a child I give birth to instead of any male partner I might have, I will gladly turn up at your front door and show you just how weak I am (I am of course, 'joking', no wait, it's my female emotions getting the better of me :rolleyes: ).

    My last line stated that men can help and i believe they should help, but for a woman who has just given birth to a child , in addition to the hormones produced in a woman that makes her want to hold the child, it is better for the child and the mother that they get time to bond during these early stages and periods. This is mother-offspring bonding time is present in so species in the animal kingdom.
    Presupposing that such a bond is there, it isn't a given.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imiss-school)
    Why is this digusting sexism tolerated with no one batting an eye lid?



    I cannot apply for this scholarship simply because I am male.

    This is rather infuriating, I meet all the other criteria yet because of my gender I am being discriminated against.

    Imagine the outrage if there was an exclusively male only scholarship.

    Is there have a human rights case?

    Well, there are of course plenty of scholarships and awards just for men eg
    this one at Lincoln's Inn (for people wanting to read for the Bar examinations. )

    Tancred Studentships
    The Scholarships for the BPTC year will include two awards of approximately £15,000 each for male communicant members of the Church of England.

    While you're in the writing mood you could also complain about these.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxxxLillyxxxx)
    It's an initiative for women to get into science; which even in this day and age is needed!

    Women have had to put up with that kind of discrimination for forever, so I’m sure men can cope with a course giving 10 women an opportunity to get into science.
    So you solve a wrong with a wrong. That's just pure genius!

    You wouldn't have that perspective if this directly effected you.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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