gordon@bolton.UUCP (Gordon Partridge) (05/11/84)
I am not sure what Ethan Vishniac's thesis is. Is it that one gender really *is* "demonstrably stupider, more emotional, and less physically capable", or that we *mistakenly perceive* this to be the case? One of our genders is less physically capable of carrying the weight of a developing fetus or lugging a 10 kilogram child around for hours at a time. One of our genders has been *trained* not to show emotion; personally, I envy the other gender's privilege of revealing emotions. One of our genders has been *trained* to eschew sciences and mathematics, and therefore *on the average* knows little about these fields; the other gender is *trained* that arts and humanities are not for them, and therefore *on the average* knows little about these fields. Which of these genders is more stupid? What specific problem(s) does Mr. Vishniac refer to? Gordon R. Partridge, GenRad, Inc., Mail Stop 98, Route 117, Bolton, MA 01740
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (05/13/84)
Why is it that it is taken for granted that all observed gender
differences other than the gross physical ones are assumed to
be due entirely to social conditioning. The evidence is by no
means clear on this subject.
If a scientist were to do a study which tended to show there
were structural differences between the sexes which helped to
explain the domination of men in math and physics, this scientist
would be immediately branded sexist. No matter if his research
methods were impeccable. No matter if he judges his collegues
and students soley on the basis of their work. He has come
up with a conclusion which is philisophically wrong and thus
cannot be valid.
I am certian that there will be those who will attack me
for saying men are inherently better at math than women. I have
said no such thing nor do I hold this opinion. There is simply
insufficient evidence to do so. However, I do not hold the
opinion that the observed differences are due to "*training*".
There is insufficient evidence to support this conclusion.
A friend of mine (Tracy Tims sometime contributer to this
forum) agrees, but says that if (repeat if! (emphasis mine))
such differences exist it would be a bad idea to prove this
as society is unlikely to react to such information in a mature
manner. I do not agree. The knowledge would in fact be
dangerous knowledge, but dangerous knowledge should be faced
not ignored.
With regard to people equality does not imply identity.
There are observed differnces between the sexes. Let us
study these differences with open minds.
William Hugheszben@umcp-cs.UUCP (05/14/84)
>> I am certian that there will be those who will attack me >> for saying men are inherently better at math than women. I have >> said no such thing nor do I hold this opinion. There is simply >> insufficient evidence to do so. However, I do not hold the >> opinion that the observed differences are due to "*training*". >> There is insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. You got it, boobie.... "A hollow voice cries 'Ready on the range!'...". Having just completed aiding a friend (and S.O.) through the first semester of Calculus, I have to cry B.S. at the above analysis. Let me tell you that, as a tutor, it is a pure *joy* to work with someone who has some aptitude for the subject, someone you don't have to leadd by the hand, someone you can just point in the right direction and then stand back and watch them work. Yet this woman was just another victim of "math anxiety", or social roles, or whatever makes the completely socialized woman treat higher math with the same "euuw gross" with which she treats "spiders and snakes". Until together we came to the conclusion that its "all right" to like math. In this particular case I think the problem was her father, who I understand was quite a mathemetician himself, and was perhaps a little too demanding at a critical point in her childhood. Now, I think this problem might come under the heading of "*training*" as used above, but stating that there is "insufficient evidence" to support this kind of conclusion is tantamount to admitting blindness. Open your eyes, fool... ("Now make two copies, Gertrude, and file one in net.flames and the other in net.women..." :-) -- Ben Cranston ...seismo!umcp-cs!zben zben@umd2.ARPA
anita@drux3.UUCP (05/15/84)
-- > ...I do not hold ... that observed differences [in math skills between > men and women] are due to training. There is insufficient evidence... I think there is plenty of evidence. I went through 12 years of Catholic school. In my area, that meant that for the first 8 years math, english and religion were about all we ever spent time on. It also meant that, for the most part, I was taught by nuns. Some nuns (most, I would say, 15 years ago) had a resentment toward men. This sometimes meant that they heavily encouraged girls to achieve in all subjects. In grade school, the best four or so math students were girls. I remember a nun in 7th grade telling the girls that we should not start hiding our skills in math just to defer to the boys. Well, that didn't happen, at least through high school. There were always more girls than boys at the top of the math classes, but we were not unaware of the outside world's attitude. When I was a sophomore in HS I was at the top of my math class. There was a guy who was second. One day the teacher (a nun, incidently) told him he should develop his math skills by majoring in engineering in college. She said I should become a high school teacher (like her). I therefor (unconsciously) assumed that women could not be engineers. I was only to start thinking in feminist terms a few years later, and since I was totally unaware of the assumption I had made, I didn't rethink it until I was a senior in college. By then I was not about to start over. What I want to point out here is that it was never "evident" to me that men were better at math. I had just the opposite opinion. It was only in college that I saw women coming in lower in math, and I automatically assumed that that was because they were in general choosing careers that traditionally were thought to be more feminine, and thus weren't working at math as much. I think that's closer to the truth. Anita
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/16/84)
No respectable scientist has proposed that women are genetically predisposed to be unable to learn arithmetic or calculus or any of the mathematical subjects useful to most engineers. The trait several scientists have proposed to be subject to a sexual predisposition is the ability to perceive or to visualize spatial relationships. Not being a mathematician I am not sure but I suspect such a predisposition might mean women on the average might have greater difficulty learning certain areas of differential geometry or of topology. I do not believe any researcher has postulated a specific sex-linked gene as is the case for hemophilia but many scientists do speak of sexual predisposition to violence or to aggressiveness or to motherliness. Suggesting a sexual predisposition to ability or inability to perceive spatial relationships does not seem totally off the wall.
engels@ihuxo.UUCP (SME) (05/19/84)
Anita makes a very good point about the effect on children/teenagers of directional guidance. I was a good(not top of my class) student in math through grade school and high school-scored high in math aptitude on SAT/ACT etc. Two of my brothers(1 year older and two years younger) had lower marks in math aptitude and much lower grades. We had the same high school counseler. He directed my brothers to Radio/TV and Electrical Engineering. He suggested I go to Art School(I did express interest in art, but my younger brother also expressed interest in history and he dissuaded him). Today, I am just completing an Associates in ET. I have a Bachelors in Fine Arts. Neither of my brothers have completed a degree or are gainfully employed. They have bounced from major to major-job to job. I am employed and have consistently been employed for 8 years. Well, my high school counselor didn't ruin my life or anything- but he sure didn't help my brothers with his narrow-minded counseling.