ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (05/17/84)
The anecdote from drux3!anita certainly lends credence to the notion that the observed difference in skill orientation between men and women is learned rather than inherent, but it is not strong evidence for it. Anita observed an environment where some of the common sexist bias was reversed, and the observed differences also turned out to be reversed. What is needed to prove the theory is observation of an environment where sexist bias is absent, or failing that, some way of quantifying sexism so that we can graph the observations and see if the line goes through (0,0) or not. I don't think we'll get either of these for some time. If the theory is false and there are inherent differences, of course, that might be easier to prove. One only needs to find an environment such as Anita's where women are expected to do better, say, at math (but with a smaller degree of this bias), but nevertheless they do not. The trouble is that people within such a system would probably notice what was going on after some time, change their expectations accordingly, and destroy the conditions. In short, the problem is hard to settle either way. (My mind is open.) Anecdotes are suggestive, but are not proof. Mark Brader