Special bonus points: female

[HappyQuark]

As for the rest of your post it’s not even worth responding to, you’re just trying to start a fight.

I'll tell you what, I'll make things easy and ask the questions in a point by point fashion and without the sass.

1. What potential negative effects could come as the result of allowing female children to play with "male toys" and, more generally, in treating women as equals in all respects?

2. As a follow up to 1, how likely do you think this negative impact is to occur and, in light of the fact that many parents have been raising their child more or less gender neutral for at least the last 30 years, why is it that there have been no clear instances of adult women behaving inappropriately due to a "gender confusion", as you put it?

3. Why do you feel that biological predisposition towards certain behavior in chimpanzees and early humans should dictate how our modern culture behaves?

4. What evidence do you have to suggest that most modernized societies are not capable and actively working towards the elimination of gender roles. Specifically, can you think of an institution which has made no progress towards eliminating gender roles?

5. Why is it important to maintain gender roles in our society? In what scenario would we suffer a negative consequence as the result of not knowing a persons gender before interacting with them?

6. Although nobody on the forum disagrees with the statement, men and women are different, most of us engaged in this discussion don't feel that the differences between men and women extend beyond anatomical structure. Which aspect of the human condition do you feel distinguishes men from women and on which grounds do you feel it is important or necessary to make this distinction?

[midwestphysics]

As for the rest of your post it’s not even worth responding to, you’re just trying to start a fight.

I'll tell you what, I'll make things easy and ask the questions in a point by point fashion and without the sass.

1. What potential negative effects could come as the result of allowing female children to play with "male toys" and, more generally, in treating women as equals in all respects?

2. As a follow up to 1, how likely do you think this negative impact is to occur and, in light of the fact that many parents have been raising their child more or less gender neutral for at least the last 30 years, why is it that there have been no clear instances of adult women behaving inappropriately due to a "gender confusion", as you put it?

3. Why do you feel that biological predisposition towards certain behavior in chimpanzees and early humans should dictate how our modern culture behaves?

4. What evidence do you have to suggest that most modernized societies are not capable and actively working towards the elimination of gender roles. Specifically, can you think of an institution which has made no progress towards eliminating gender roles?

5. Why is it important to maintain gender roles in our society? In what scenario would we suffer a negative consequence as the result of not knowing a persons gender before interacting with them?

6. Although nobody on the forum disagrees with the statement, men and women are different, most of us engaged in this discussion don't feel that the differences between men and women extend beyond anatomical structure. Which aspect of the human condition do you feel distinguishes men from women and on which grounds do you feel it is important or necessary to make this distinction?

I don’t know specifically the negative effects, nor do I know if there will be negative effect. My point was that we should be cautious of “possible” negative effects. With most changes there are positive and negative results, I assume this would be similar, though the positive clearly seems to outweigh any possible negative. I just saying we need to be cautious and careful.

Your second part, I’m assuming your main point is in regards to my use of the term gender confusion. Well, here is an instance that you don’t believe exist. The number of sexual exploits has increased within modern time in regards to the female sex, take it or leave it as an example. I’m not saying men should be overly sexual or that women shouldn’t have sex, but there has been an increase in the number of sexual partners.

I’m not sure these are predispositions limited to early humans.

Gender roles in society, divorce is a clear case, when children are involved 9 times out of 10 they will stay with the mother. If you did not know the roles, chances are you would place them with the more financially stable of the two parents, which ever sex that may be. Yet our society still give preference to mothers, I’m not sure if that’s right to do but it is true.

The distinctions, in example parental instincts, many men maintain a high parental instinct, but women on average maintain a higher parental instinct.

[twistor]

The distinctions, in example parental instincts, many men maintain a high parental instinct, but women on average maintain a higher parental instinct.

I'm not sure what you mean by parental instinct. Men become parents as often as women. No one can dispute that.

If you're saying men aren't as interested in women as raising the children I think you'll find a large number of men who disagree with you. Again, the fact that you point that there's a difference doesn't mean that difference is dictated by biology -- or that it can't be over come even if it is.

[midwestphysics]

The distinctions, in example parental instincts, many men maintain a high parental instinct, but women on average maintain a higher parental instinct.

I'm not sure what you mean by parental instinct. Men become parents as often as women. No one can dispute that.

If you're saying men aren't as interested in women as raising the children I think you'll find a large number of men who disagree with you. Again, the fact that you point that there's a difference doesn't mean that difference is dictated by biology -- or that it can't be over come even if it is.

What I meant is that as I said "on average" women are geared more toward wanting to have kids and raise kids, a "higher" paternal instinct. The prime instinct of all life is to reproduce so it is biological, but it can be overcome as some decide not to have kids. This however cannot be completely overcome otherwise we would cease to exist further.

[HappyQuark]

I don’t know specifically the negative effects, nor do I know if there will be negative effect. My point was that we should be cautious of “possible” negative effects. With most changes there are positive and negative results, I assume this would be similar, though the positive clearly seems to outweigh any possible negative. I just saying we need to be cautious and careful.

I would call this a slippery slope fallacy except even slippery slope arguments suggest some kind of negative end result.

Your second part, I’m assuming your main point is in regards to my use of the term gender confusion. Well, here is an instance that you don’t believe exist. The number of sexual exploits has increased within modern time in regards to the female sex, take it or leave it as an example. I’m not saying men should be overly sexual or that women shouldn’t have sex, but there has been an increase in the number of sexual partners.

No, the question I am asking, which I feel I did a pretty good job of clarifying the first time I asked it, is what is the likelihood that we will see any of these nebulous, unknown negative impacts? Furthermore, if you think negative impacts are possible as a result of not clearly defining gender roles for children, would you accept the fact that not a single known instance of "gender confusion" instigated problems ever occurring, despite much gender neutrality in modern parenting, sufficient to declare your concerns as unwarranted?

I’m not sure these are predispositions limited to early humans.

I never suggested they were limited to early humans and I specifically included chimpanzees as another species we share a common ancestor with that I might be willing to accept as having clearly defined gender roles.

Gender roles in society, divorce is a clear case, when children are involved 9 times out of 10 they will stay with the mother. If you did not know the roles, chances are you would place them with the more financially stable of the two parents, which ever sex that may be. Yet our society still give preference to mothers, I’m not sure if that’s right to do but it is true.

Since you didn't number things or provide your response sequentially after each of my quotes, I'm assuming this is in response to my question pertaining to institutions that are making no effort to improve gender equality and eliminating preferential gender roles. If this is the case, then this is probably not a good example since this cultural phenomena has made a lot of progress in giving fathers more of an opportunity to care for their children after a divorce.

The distinctions, in example parental instincts, many men maintain a high parental instinct, but women on average maintain a higher parental instinct.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by parental instinct? Are you suggesting that in a divorce the father is more likely to abandon the child than the mother or mistreat the child than the mother due to a lesser parental instinct?

[HappyQuark]

The distinctions, in example parental instincts, many men maintain a high parental instinct, but women on average maintain a higher parental instinct.

I'm not sure what you mean by parental instinct. Men become parents as often as women. No one can dispute that.

If you're saying men aren't as interested in women as raising the children I think you'll find a large number of men who disagree with you. Again, the fact that you point that there's a difference doesn't mean that difference is dictated by biology -- or that it can't be over come even if it is.

What I meant is that as I said "on average" women are geared more toward wanting to have kids and raise kids. The prime instinct of all life is to reproduce so it is biological, but it can be overcome as some decide not to have kids. This however cannot be completely overcome otherwise we would cease to exist further.

I guess I am confused. Are men not a part of all life? If all living things innately feel a desire to procreate and ensure the safety of their offspring, why would men be less biologically inclined to protect their offspring?

[midwestphysics]

I guess I am confused. Are men not a part of all life? If all living things innately feel a desire to procreate and ensure the safety of their offspring, why would men be less biologically inclined to protect their offspring?

Why is real concern, because clearly men do abandon offspring at much higher rate than women.

[midwestphysics]

1. Do you believe that increased sexual activity does not increase STD’s? Just one example

2. Yes strides have been taken, but women still maintain an much higher custody rate.

[twistor]

1. Do you believe that increased sexual activity does not increase STD’s? Just one example

2. Yes strides have been taken, but women still maintain an much higher custody rate.

1. What is the point of this question? It's far off topic.

2. There are a number of campaigners for fathers' rights.

[twistor]

I guess I am confused. Are men not a part of all life? If all living things innately feel a desire to procreate and ensure the safety of their offspring, why would men be less biologically inclined to protect their offspring?

Why is real concern, because clearly men do abandon offspring at much higher rate than women.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we give girls dolls and reward them for nurturing them and give boys footballs and reward them for throwing well.

[midwestphysics]

1. Do you believe that increased sexual activity does not increase STD’s? Just one example

2. Yes strides have been taken, but women still maintain an much higher custody rate.

1. What is the point of this question? It's far off topic.

2. There are a number of campaigners for fathers' rights.

The first part did have to do with some parts of the posts farther back (but yeah we're way off the original topic of this thread which is due in part to myself.)

Yes, I know there are father's rights groups, however there existence only proves that there is a bias.

As for the dolls, in many species, not all, but in many which obviously don't have toys the parenting is female dominated.

[midwestphysics]

In the end I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I'm just discussing this ever-evolving topic with you. Our differences are mostly miscommunication I believe, with some very different opinions as well. Still, let's just keep hammering it out until we're on the same page.

[twistor]

1. Do you believe that increased sexual activity does not increase STD’s? Just one example

2. Yes strides have been taken, but women still maintain an much higher custody rate.

1. What is the point of this question? It's far off topic.

2. There are a number of campaigners for fathers' rights.

The first part did have to do with some parts of the posts farther back (but yeah we're way off the original topic of this thread which is due in part to myself.)

Yes, I know there are father's rights groups, however there existence only proves that there is a bias.

As for the dolls, in many species, not all, but in many which obviously don't have toys the parenting is female dominated.

So what? Those are non-human species.

[midwestphysics]

So what? Those are non-human species.

Well the point was to show the same result happens in connecting situations of parenting that don't involve the factor of gender specific toys.

[HappyQuark]

1. Do you believe that increased sexual activity does not increase STD’s? Just one example

Why would an increase in STD's occur as a result of not enforcing gender roles? I'm worried you didn't understand my question.

2. Yes strides have been taken, but women still maintain an much higher custody rate.

I think you are ultimately missing my point. As we've already said, our current culture is not entirely equal in all respects and one area in which this is probably true is in divorce. Nobody is arguing that our current culture is perfect. What we are arguing is that every aspect of our culture that we can conceive of is working towards equality, including in divorce.

[midwestphysics]

1. Do you believe that increased sexual activity does not increase STD’s? Just one example

Why would an increase in STD's occur as a result of not enforcing gender roles? I'm worried you didn't understand my question.

2. Yes strides have been taken, but women still maintain an much higher custody rate.

I think you are ultimately missing my point. As we've already said, our current culture is not entirely equal in all respects and one area in which this is probably true is in divorce. Nobody is arguing that our current culture is perfect. What we are arguing is that every aspect of our culture that we can conceive of is working towards equality, including in divorce.

1. This modern "neutrality" has increased sexual activity across the gender board, which has increase std transmission rates, which is a negative effect. I’m not faulting women here, men are equally to blame. However this is an aspect we should have fought on the male side before trying to make things even and equal. We may end up passing our negative attributes to each other.

2. See now we're clear on the second part, and I agree.


EDIT:Let me add to the first part, I would hate if in neutrality if males were to pass on our "on average" increased aggression

[twistor]

So what? Those are non-human species.

Well the point was to show the same result happens in connecting situations of parenting that don't involve the factor of gender specific toys.

But non-human animals have very different social and behavioral development so you can't generalize human behavior from them.

[midwestphysics]

So what? Those are non-human species.

Well the point was to show the same result happens in connecting situations of parenting that don't involve the factor of gender specific toys.

But non-human animals have very different social and behavioral development so you can't generalize human behavior from them.

True, we can’t completely generalize, but we're also not entirely distinct. However, humans created these toys to designate roles, these roles existed before the toys as they were created as a model from our previous behavior and activities.

[HappyQuark]

1. This modern "neutrality" has increased sexual activity across the gender board, which has increase std transmission rates, which is a negative effect. I’m not faulting women here, men are equally to blame. However this is an aspect we should have fought on the male side before trying to make things even and equal. We may end up passing our negative attributes to each other.

Just so we are clear, you are arguing that when we impose gender roles on children, they are less likely to engage in unprotected sex as an adult?

[midwestphysics]

1. This modern "neutrality" has increased sexual activity across the gender board, which has increase std transmission rates, which is a negative effect. I’m not faulting women here, men are equally to blame. However this is an aspect we should have fought on the male side before trying to make things even and equal. We may end up passing our negative attributes to each other.

Just so we are clear, you are arguing that when we impose gender roles on children, they are less likely to engage in unprotected sex as an adult?

No, what I'm saying is that as we minimize these cultural gender roles, we need to be "careful" about negative impacts. That was the whole point of my first point; I obviously didn't make it clear enough. We risk the danger of spreading negative attributes by simply decreasing the gender specific influences without first correcting the behaviors that are adverse to our well being within each group. My worry was whether, given our predisposition to our current process and previous lack of deviation, we can prevent our bad aspects from spreading to each other.

[midwestphysics]

More in-depth:

For instance, in recent times we hear, at least I have, about the sexual partner double standard. In that women are viewed negatively for having many sexual partners, while men are not seen nearly as negatively. Clearly a bad attribute has transferred, instead of people arguing about such risky activity, they argue about how each side is looked at while taking part is such risky activity. (Also , for the most part I'm talking about a very high number of partners, we do need to get off women’s backs for enjoying sex. We men also need to realize that trying to have sex with every woman we see is not a good plan (of course I'm exaggerating).)

[twistor]

1. This modern "neutrality" has increased sexual activity across the gender board, which has increase std transmission rates, which is a negative effect. I’m not faulting women here, men are equally to blame. However this is an aspect we should have fought on the male side before trying to make things even and equal. We may end up passing our negative attributes to each other.

Just so we are clear, you are arguing that when we impose gender roles on children, they are less likely to engage in unprotected sex as an adult?

No, what I'm saying is that as we minimize these cultural gender roles, we need to be "careful" about negative impacts. That was the whole point of my first point; I obviously didn't make it clear enough. We risk the danger of spreading negative attributes by simply decreasing the gender specific influences without first correcting the behaviors that are adverse to our well being within each group. My worry was whether, given our predisposition to our current process and previous lack of deviation, we can prevent our bad aspects from spreading to each other.

We know you are saying that. We're telling you that we think there's been a clear trend of decreasing gender specific influences for quite some time now. We're also asking you what specific negative attributes you're referring to.

[twistor]

More in-depth:

For instance, in recent times we hear, at least I have, about the sexual partner double standard. In that women are viewed negatively for having many sexual partners, while men are not seen nearly as negatively. Clearly a bad attribute has transferred, instead of people arguing about such risky activity, they argue about how each side is looked at while taking part is such risky activity. (Also , for the most part I'm talking about a very high number of partners, we do need to get off women’s backs for enjoying sex. We men also need to realize that trying to have sex with every woman we see is not a good plan (of course I'm exaggerating).)

So I actually get what you're saying here: masculine norms state that males should have multiple and frequent sex partners. If we extend that norm to women, expecting them to engage in the same behavior, we have a recipe for disaster. After all, you need to have at least one responsible partner, right?

However, this isn't what this discussion is about. We're talking about extending the opportunities available for both sexes by limiting gender-normative inculcation at an early age. That's not quite the same as encouraging destructive behavior. We're not saying that every male behavior should also be instilled in women. There's plenty that would be beneficial to women as well as society as a whole (math ability, logical/deductive reasoning, etc.) and plenty that would be negative for everyone as well (propensity for violence, promiscuity, etc.)

And it works both ways: males could use a dose of feminine upbringing as well. Perhaps if males were encouraged to play with dolls we'd have far fewer fatherless children than we presently do.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

When one suggests that the way things "naturally" are is the way things should be, one is committing the naturalistic fallacy. If a behavior or trait is an evolutionary adaptation, that's not necessarily a reason to maintain it. How many of us still live in the environment which occasioned the evolution of the behavior or trait? Further, simply because a behavior or trait is a product of evolution doesn't mean it's the best adaptation imaginable. It's just the one which managed to survive competition among the limited space of possible adaptations available to the evolutionary process in that population, in that place, in that time. I'm sure, with all of our brains and computers, we can do better than evolution, which, while a marvelous natural process, isn't an intelligent one. And if a behavior or trait is a cultural construction, however long-standing, to argue that it ought to continue for that reason is committing the fallacy of argument from tradition.

I think that, overall, there are some differences between biological males and biological females: sex-linked traits, hormones, and so forth. However, a generalized difference is worth nothing when considering individuals. Saying, for example, that men are physically stronger than women in general, is not a useful comment about any specific man or woman. The suggestion that men are inherently better at math than women is, first, supported by little if any evidence, and second, not any reason for any specific parents to discourage their specific children from exploring STEM topics. Many of the best mathematicians I know are women, and they don't lack in natural ability. To succeed in a scientific career, one needs both interest and talent; the latter may be unevenly distributed on a genetic level (although, again, there's little evidence for that), but the former can certainly be improved by exposure and encouragement.

[twistor]

Great post. I'd like to add that with effort one can overcome inherent limitations in ability. You just need the right amount of motivation. So even if it turns out that there are some differences (and I agree with you that there probably aren't any) that's not to say that they can't be overcome if the desire is there.

[midwestphysics]

However, this isn't what this discussion is about. We're talking about extending the opportunities available for both sexes by limiting gender-normative inculcation at an early age. That's not quite the same as encouraging destructive behavior. We're not saying that every male behavior should also be instilled in women. There's plenty that would be beneficial to women as well as society as a whole (math ability, logical/deductive reasoning, etc.) and plenty that would be negative for everyone as well (propensity for violence, promiscuity, etc.)

And it works both ways: males could use a dose of feminine upbringing as well. Perhaps if males were encouraged to play with dolls we'd have far fewer fatherless children than we presently do.

I know that we're talking about, and I do agree that extending the same opportunities is not only right but beneficial. Still, I wonder that if in our current efforts to limit gender identifiers we have created side effects that aren't beneficial, it's not encouraging destructive behavior, but there may still be side effects like the one I mentioned. My only suggestions was that we approach the process carefully, not avoid it, so that we don't associate the biases of the past with our good individual qualities and as a result create a generalizing stigma that would not benefit us. It bothers me that we don’t differentiate between the good and bad qualities that we transfer, and either blanket any cross over as wrong or ignore the faults in fear of creating a double standard. Improving each gender individually benefits both genders as we eliminate cultural biases.

On the idea that saying that if something is natural then that is the way it should be, I was not saying that. I was saying however that because of how the way things might naturally be inclined, that it will be difficult to transition to the way it should be. After all evolution would be an overnight process if things were easily changed, both physically and psychologically. It may not be an intelligent process, but it is obviously a powerful one if it can give rise to so many specialized variations, and even continually altering mankind well into our higher functioning days. It is in a sense rapidly forced evolution, and it will be a process that will need to be carefully monitored so we can prevent problems from developing.

As for the second half of dreaded anomaly's and twisters last post, I’m totally on board with those points.

[swestrings]

Way to be extremely sexist. I especially love you how frame your lowly opinions as if they were elegant truths.

Referring to your first point, I do not think women are naturally predisposed to non-physics interests. The whole idea is absurd. In fact, most men I know are pre-disposed to non-physics interests.

About your second point, IQ is irrelevant. The person with the highest IQ in the world is a woman and she has produced really nothing of interest outside of a few books on being the person with the highest IQ. That's not to say you can teach a person with an IQ of 80 to be the next great investigator but rather that the correlation between success and IQ, after a certain point, isn't as strong as you might think.

First point

It is unfortunate that you view my observations as sexist, because I would view myself as being completely warm to the idea of women taking over engineering, math and physics and why not science in general. However, observing that men commit all violent crimes does not make me sexist towards men either. Observing that men are behind most frauds and tax evasions does not make me negative toward men either. Even the fact that most people with psychological aberrations are also men does not change that fact. So why do you make the presumption that my observations (that research shows that there are differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women) are sexist?

In fact, you could even take this further - as this is fundamental and has nothing to do with magnitudes - as will now be shown. For example, a man is probably 20 times more likely to commit a violent crime. What if a woman were twenty times more likely to suck at math/physics/engineering. Do either of these observations lead to thinking that all men and women are terrible or incompetent people ? No. The first is definitely true, and like I said, for all non-offending men I am completely unbiased and unsexist. In the same way, I have never said a women who is good at math, is not good at math, based on the silly and unrelated factor that she may have a different gender.

The important point of all this, the underlying theme, is that it is possible to not discriminate or generalize or stereotype an individual without this having anything to do with the statistics and biological statistics of large groups . It is totally possible for there to be differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women, without this meaning that any one who takes part of this information is transformed instantaneously into a bigotted sexist, or implying that the person in question was already bigotted and in fact actively sought after motivations for their views. Neither is true in my case, I can assure you.

And yes, the worlds highest IQ back in the Stanford-Binet days, was and might still be a woman. On the new scale, it might be different. Most contenders for this unofficial post are men these days though, and should come as no surprise. However, this is missing the point in a subtle way. If the tallest and strongest person in the world was a woman, does that change the fact that most firemen and boxers are men? No. The reason for this is that although there may exist genes or environmental factors that in extreme situations only activate or matter at all in women, this obviously (as shown by multiple studies) has had no effect on the larger groups.

The way in which this enters our debate is the following: I originally inserted myself at the point when the debate over whether 50% of the physics and engineering classes will be female in the foreseeable future, not into any question of whether the very, very best potential physicist in the world is male or female. We were discussing large groups (gender distributions of large classes in many universities), not individuals.

Second point

IQ may be irrelevant. But differing in that position, by saying for example that IQ might be very important for physics, does in no way constitute sufficiently the property of being sexist, not by a long shot.

I think it is obvious that IQ is important, irrespective of gender issues. In fact, for all the shortcomings of IQ (which are discussed much, much more than the pro's of IQ) math and physics and engineering are probably the areas in which it carries the strongest predictive power. In fact I believe that one of the stated goals over the last 50 years has been to increase the correlation of the test result with mathematical prowess.

And finally, if girls are getting more attention to their problems it is probably because most physicists are males who like to give girls attention. Also, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say that girls are more willing to ask for help because society decrees that it is emasculating for a man to ask for help.

All points made here are true, and I agree with them without exception. It still, however, does not succeed in glueing 'sexist values' to my persona.

Is it really that they like different toys or that we give them certain toys we expect them to like?

This is not really relevant to the debated but I decided to comment anyway. Hate to break it to you, but this simple thought is in no way original. It has been tested at least once, and possibly more times. Don't have the link, I remember a famous blogger in my country posting it and discussing it. Boys and girls, when presented at the very first age with all sorts of toys, still went for the 'culturally indented' ones. The test is done and the results are in and nothing unusual was reported. Sorry.

lmfao @ book. Seriously? You're *** joking, right? That's very blatant misogyny -- the idea that women gaining rights somehow harms men -- *** get real.
I bet you're really pissed that grae is a moderator of this board.
And up until now I thought I was the biggest asshole on this forum...

I do not share any of the particular views of the author. I was only hoping to post something american because I remembered that this was an observed phenomenon in the USA too. It is discussed heavily in my country but I guess it is useless to post material in my mother tongue, right? The trend identified by the book is correct, the reasons for it might be incorrect as I have not read the book.

And of course, more rights and freedoms for everybody is great

I am new to the forum and I have no idea who 'grae' is, besides that you now imply she is female.

Perhaps it's just me succumbing to the popular prejudices, but I believe that on average women are inherently slightly less capable at math and science than men. The key is the on average part, and that means there are still plenty of women left who are extraordinarily capable at math and science. And I don't think that means that women are inferior to men in general. There's a lot more to life and being intelligent than being able to do math. However I'm willing to admit that the data that supports this idea could very well be a result of only cultural conditioning.

Aha, the aforementioned grae.

Finally an answer which is not wishy-washy bachelor-of-arts crap. This is the way you do analytical writing. Agree completely, in fact I think I rehashed the boldtyped points in this post.

[twistor]

Way to be extremely sexist. I especially love you how frame your lowly opinions as if they were elegant truths.

Referring to your first point, I do not think women are naturally predisposed to non-physics interests. The whole idea is absurd. In fact, most men I know are pre-disposed to non-physics interests.

About your second point, IQ is irrelevant. The person with the highest IQ in the world is a woman and she has produced really nothing of interest outside of a few books on being the person with the highest IQ. That's not to say you can teach a person with an IQ of 80 to be the next great investigator but rather that the correlation between success and IQ, after a certain point, isn't as strong as you might think.

First point

It is unfortunate that you view my observations as sexist, because I would view myself as being completely warm to the idea of women taking over engineering, math and physics and why not science in general. However, observing that men commit all violent crimes does not make me sexist towards men either. Observing that men are behind most frauds and tax evasions does not make me negative toward men either. Even the fact that most people with psychological aberrations are also men does not change that fact. So why do you make the presumption that my observations (that research shows that there are differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women) are sexist?

In fact, you could even take this further - as this is fundamental and has nothing to do with magnitudes - as will now be shown. For example, a man is probably 20 times more likely to commit a violent crime. What if a woman were twenty times more likely to suck at math/physics/engineering. Do either of these observations lead to thinking that all men and women are terrible or incompetent people ? No. The first is definitely true, and like I said, for all non-offending men I am completely unbiased and unsexist. In the same way, I have never said a women who is good at math, is not good at math, based on the silly and unrelated factor that she may have a different gender.

The important point of all this, the underlying theme, is that it is possible to not discriminate or generalize or stereotype an individual without this having anything to do with the statistics and biological statistics of large groups . It is totally possible for there to be differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women, without this meaning that any one who takes part of this information is transformed instantaneously into a bigotted sexist, or implying that the person in question was already bigotted and in fact actively sought after motivations for their views. Neither is true in my case, I can assure you.

And yes, the worlds highest IQ back in the Stanford-Binet days, was and might still be a woman. On the new scale, it might be different. Most contenders for this unofficial post are men these days though, and should come as no surprise. However, this is missing the point in a subtle way. If the tallest and strongest person in the world was a woman, does that change the fact that most firemen and boxers are men? No. The reason for this is that although there may exist genes or environmental factors that in extreme situations only activate or matter at all in women, this obviously (as shown by multiple studies) has had no effect on the larger groups.

The way in which this enters our debate is the following: I originally inserted myself at the point when the debate over whether 50% of the physics and engineering classes will be female in the foreseeable future, not into any question of whether the very, very best potential physicist in the world is male or female. We were discussing large groups (gender distributions of large classes in many universities), not individuals.

Second point

IQ may be irrelevant. But differing in that position, by saying for example that IQ might be very important for physics, does in no way constitute sufficiently the property of being sexist, not by a long shot.

I think it is obvious that IQ is important, irrespective of gender issues. In fact, for all the shortcomings of IQ (which are discussed much, much more than the pro's of IQ) math and physics and engineering are probably the areas in which it carries the strongest predictive power. In fact I believe that one of the stated goals over the last 50 years has been to increase the correlation of the test result with mathematical prowess.

And finally, if girls are getting more attention to their problems it is probably because most physicists are males who like to give girls attention. Also, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say that girls are more willing to ask for help because society decrees that it is emasculating for a man to ask for help.

All points made here are true, and I agree with them without exception. It still, however, does not succeed in glueing 'sexist values' to my persona.

Is it really that they like different toys or that we give them certain toys we expect them to like?

This is not really relevant to the debated but I decided to comment anyway. Hate to break it to you, but this simple thought is in no way original. It has been tested at least once, and possibly more times. Don't have the link, I remember a famous blogger in my country posting it and discussing it. Boys and girls, when presented at the very first age with all sorts of toys, still went for the 'culturally indented' ones. The test is done and the results are in and nothing unusual was reported. Sorry.

lmfao @ book. Seriously? You're *** joking, right? That's very blatant misogyny -- the idea that women gaining rights somehow harms men -- *** get real.
I bet you're really pissed that grae is a moderator of this board.
And up until now I thought I was the biggest asshole on this forum...

I do not share any of the particular views of the author. I was only hoping to post something american because I remembered that this was an observed phenomenon in the USA too. It is discussed heavily in my country but I guess it is useless to post material in my mother tongue, right? The trend identified by the book is correct, the reasons for it might be incorrect as I have not read the book.

And of course, more rights and freedoms for everybody is great

I am new to the forum and I have no idea who 'grae' is, besides that you now imply she is female.

Perhaps it's just me succumbing to the popular prejudices, but I believe that on average women are inherently slightly less capable at math and science than men. The key is the on average part, and that means there are still plenty of women left who are extraordinarily capable at math and science. And I don't think that means that women are inferior to men in general. There's a lot more to life and being intelligent than being able to do math. However I'm willing to admit that the data that supports this idea could very well be a result of only cultural conditioning.

Aha, the aforementioned grae.

Finally an answer which is not wishy-washy bachelor-of-arts crap. This is the way you do analytical writing. Agree completely, in fact I think I rehashed the boldtyped points in this post.

I'll attack this in pieces.

It is unfortunate that you view my observations as sexist, because I would view myself as being completely warm to the idea of women taking over engineering, math and physics and why not science in general. However, observing that men commit all violent crimes does not make me sexist towards men either. Observing that men are behind most frauds and tax evasions does not make me negative toward men either. Even the fact that most people with psychological aberrations are also men does not change that fact. So why do you make the presumption that my observations (that research shows that there are differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women) are sexist?

Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other. It can also include this type of discrimination in regards to gender. Sexism primarily involves hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism) (boldface added for emphasis)

Your statements clearly fit this definition of sexism.

I do not share any of the particular views of the author. I was only hoping to post something american because I remembered that this was an observed phenomenon in the USA too. It is discussed heavily in my country but I guess it is useless to post material in my mother tongue, right? The trend identified by the book is correct, the reasons for it might be incorrect as I have not read the book.

If you don't agree with the author then why did you try to use his book to support your argument? And if you haven't read it you shouldn't be citing it, anyway. Who are these so-called observers? Other sexists?

On the new scale, it might be different. Most contenders for this unofficial post are men these days though, and should come as no surprise.

(boldface added by me). Again, see definition above if you still don't think you're sexist.

In fact, you could even take this further - as this is fundamental and has nothing to do with magnitudes - as will now be shown. For example, a man is probably 20 times more likely to commit a violent crime. What if a woman were twenty times more likely to suck at math/physics/engineering. Do either of these observations lead to thinking that all men and women are terrible or incompetent people ? No. The first is definitely true, and like I said, for all non-offending men I am completely unbiased and unsexist. In the same way, I have never said a women who is good at math, is not good at math, based on the silly and unrelated factor that she may have a different gender.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Is it really that they like different toys or that we give them certain toys we expect them to like?

This is not really relevant to the debated but I decided to comment anyway. Hate to break it to you, but this simple thought is in no way original. It has been tested at least once, and possibly more times. Don't have the link, I remember a famous blogger in my country posting it and discussing it. Boys and girls, when presented at the very first age with all sorts of toys, still went for the 'culturally indented' ones. The test is done and the results are in and nothing unusual was reported. Sorry.

It is relevant because you brought up the notion that males and females like different toys. You brought it up. It's in no way a new idea. You, however, didn't seem to be aware of it. I could really give a *** what some blogger has to say about it.

So why do you make the presumption that my observations (that research shows that there are differences in standard deviations in IQ between men and women) are sexist?

Because you claim that women are biologically not as good at physics and there's no evidence of that. Your quote:

The two main points I made are: women are predisposed to non-physics interests even at the biological stage, culture and nurture are upon this only an exacerbating perturbation.

It's a long leap to go from differences in performance on standardized tests to concluding there are differences in biology that cause them. A looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong leap.

All in all, I think most researchers think it would be great to increase the number of women at their department and therefore it might even be possible to slip through with worse credentials if you are a girl.

Sounds misogynistic to me.

If the tallest and strongest person in the world was a woman, does that change the fact that most firemen and boxers are men? No. The reason for this is that although there may exist genes or environmental factors that in extreme situations only activate or matter at all in women, this obviously (as shown by multiple studies) has had no effect on the larger groups.

The fact that many women do not box and fight fires does not mean that women are biologically programmed to have an aversion to conflict and heat. What genes? What "activation"? What studies? I'm no biologist but I do know some biology and what your saying sounds like horseshit to me. Also, you can't prove your point by speculating on genes that "may exist."

[negru]

Yes I also believe females should be surgically equipped with a spare hose to put out fires, so they will be as likely as men to become firewomen.

[zxcv]

Fun fact: out of threads with 20+ posts in this sub-forum, this thread has the lowest number of views/reply by a solid margin.

Conclusion: time to give this discussion a rest and shut up. Nobody cares.

[pqortic]

Fun fact: out of threads with 20+ posts in this sub-forum, this thread has the lowest number of views/reply by a solid margin.

Conclusion: time to give this discussion a rest and shut up. Nobody cares.

you compare this with profile threads? in fact I think this thread is so controversial and popular.
it's time somebody recaps the thread. because it's become pretty long and people don't intend to read all four pages and comment. or maybe we need to have a poll for main ideas of the thread.

[HappyQuark]

Fun fact: out of threads with 20+ posts in this sub-forum, this thread has the lowest number of views/reply by a solid margin.

Conclusion: time to give this discussion a rest and shut up. Nobody cares.

I'm going to have to agree with zxcv on this one. The merit of a conversation is always determined by the number of people viewing the conversation. For example, recall that time that the United Nations were discussing the necessary steps that should be taken to deal with South African apartheid and then when some of the UN stopped paying attention, they immediately realized it wasn't worth their time and switched to a discussion on whether marshmallow bits or reese's pieces was a better toping on ice cream. Of course I don't need to remind you that marshmallow bits won on that momentous day, with the primary reasoning cited as the fact that they become a little bit tough and chewy from the cold, but not tough in a way that makes them feel old and stale but an interesting new chewy texture. Well, you know, it's hard to describe but you know what I'm talking about. Anyways, back to my original point which was that this realization, that discussion topics should be decided by those with only the most minute amount of contribution and based on the grounds that other people may not care as much as those actively engaged in the conversation, is a principle that we all agree with implicitly.

[twistor]

Fun fact: out of threads with 20+ posts in this sub-forum, this thread has the lowest number of views/reply by a solid margin.

Conclusion: time to give this discussion a rest and shut up. Nobody cares.

I'm worried that you might have actually calculated that number.

The people commenting here care. *** everyone else.

Update...

I decided to see if what zxcv said is actually true, so I plotted the ratio of #replies/#views for various threads. Turns out this thread is about as popular as other threads in this forum. Based on this metric, it is the profile threads that get the least participation and aren't worth keeping around....

[giga17]

Wow, this is an epic thread. This needs a revival!

[InquilineKea]

Fun fact: out of threads with 20+ posts in this sub-forum, this thread has the lowest number of views/reply by a solid margin.

Conclusion: time to give this discussion a rest and shut up. Nobody cares.

I'm worried that you might have actually calculated that number.

The people commenting here care. *** everyone else.

Update...

I decided to see if what zxcv said is actually true, so I plotted the ratio of #replies/#views for various threads. Turns out this thread is about as popular as other threads in this forum. Based on this metric, it is the profile threads that get the least participation and aren't worth keeping around....

haha i love that diagram