|
Post by jmurray on Jul 31, 2014 13:44:09 GMT
I see this a little differently. I feel that it doesn't matter how many feminists there are, there will never be a balance of men/women in economic and political power. More men want political and economic (business) power than women. You might as well ask for a balance of men/women in nursing or elementary education. People gravitate to things that are important to them, and that fits into their lifestyle and interests. And, the reason so many of these 'gray haired' men are in positions of power is simply age. They have been doing this for a very long time and are good at it. There aren't many 30 year old CEOs or Senators. But the question begs answering, why does one measure success or importance by who holds 'power'? Is that the measuring stick for determining societal progress? How about happiness? Or satisfaction? Or friendship? Or inner peace? Or good relationships? Or goodness? Or generosity? There are a million things that are of greater value to me than who holds 'power'. I do like what you said about everyone having the same freedom of choices available, with gender never entering into the equation. I guess that's why I don't call myself a feminist. Feminist promotes gender. I promote individuality. Stef, the reason I think achieving gender balance in power is important, is to ensure both sides' interests are represented and considered, and that one is not favoured over the other. You point out that men and women often gravitate towards gender based roles. I'm not 100% sure of the data that supports that statement, but I do know for a fact there are way more women who want to be (and are capable of being) CEOs, Presidents, Chairpersons etc than are represented at those levels at present. So personally I don't buy the notion that they're not at that level because they don't want to be. There's another reason, and glass ceiling / old boys networks have had a lot to do with that over previous decades. Is it getting better? Yes, but not nearly quick enough for my liking. As for grey haired men being better or smarter simply because they're older... again, I'm unsure of the data on that, but my question in response is: where are all the grey haired women who are just as smart?
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 31, 2014 13:45:44 GMT
I totally agree with you jmurray.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Jul 31, 2014 15:30:00 GMT
I don't even know where to start.... but I will say that I'd venture a guess that there are also TONS of men who want to, and are capable of being CEOs, Presidents and Chairpersons, but who somehow don't get to that level. There are only so many positions like that, and it takes lots of years, long hours, connections, hard work, and career sacrifices to get to that point. I applaud any woman who makes it to the pinnacles of business, but I just don't agree that more women in positions of power will change anything about the dynamics of political or economic power. Remember, you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist. So, there may be lots of men in power who are feminists, and run their businesses or political organization with fairness and sensitivity. But my original contention is that using POWER as a benchmark of feminist success seems futile. Even in the most egalitarian societies (such as Denmark, Sweden, etc) have fairly low percentages of females in corporate power. The highest rates of female CEOs in the world are the Philippines and Russia, not exactly hot beds of feminism. As far as political power is concerned, the country with the highest number of female parliamentarians is Rwanda. I love to see women politicians and elected officials, and would vote for a woman over a man, all other things being equal. But I don't necessarily think that more women in political or economic power necessarily translates to better outcomes for women. Women politicians and CEOs can be just as corrupt with power as men. I would name some, but don't want to get into a fight! As far as the 'white hair' comments go, I really resent it when people criticize people who have reached a 'certain age', as if being older or grayer somehow means they are out of touch, part of an 'old boys network', etc. And yes, 'white hair' can also be women, and I think there are many older women who have achieved notable success in the business or political world. I guess I'm old school enough to feel that being older can often (but not always) mean the person is wiser, experienced, and accomplished.
We have made a lot of progress in gender issues in the past 100 years or so. I've lived through much of this, and am grateful for brave souls who stood up for themselves and other women to achieve inroads into many male bastions. But we live in a time that has so many opportunities for women. There are very very few doors that are closed to women, (actually, I can't really think of any, but I'm sure someone will have something). I've never understood why women have bought into the (male) construct that the important things in society are power and money. To me, the most important things in life are relationships, family, personal achievements, service, Church, and the like. Sure, power in the wrong hands can hamper women and women's issues; but our government today is very sensitive to women's issues and women don't seem to be any happier today than they were when I was young. Happiness, contentment, and goodness can never come with power and money.
I'm not sure this makes much sense, but I hope it explained a little.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Jul 31, 2014 15:39:18 GMT
I see this a little differently. I feel that it doesn't matter how many feminists there are, there will never be a balance of men/women in economic and political power. More men want political and economic (business) power than women. You might as well ask for a balance of men/women in nursing or elementary education. People gravitate to things that are important to them, and that fits into their lifestyle and interests. And, the reason so many of these 'gray haired' men are in positions of power is simply age. They have been doing this for a very long time and are good at it. There aren't many 30 year old CEOs or Senators. But the question begs answering, why does one measure success or importance by who holds 'power'? Is that the measuring stick for determining societal progress? How about happiness? Or satisfaction? Or friendship? Or inner peace? Or good relationships? Or goodness? Or generosity? There are a million things that are of greater value to me than who holds 'power'. I do like what you said about everyone having the same freedom of choices available, with gender never entering into the equation. I guess that's why I don't call myself a feminist. Feminist promotes gender. I promote individuality. I've been researching this all summer, and you are actually incorrect, it's not that young girls and women don't want those jobs (politics and business) or positions of power, but rather that at a very young age (around middle school) we start to really socialize them to go and do the things that "women" do, and we don't have role models in prominent positions (or not many) in these fields. It's vital that we as a society recognize that this is not about gender nature, but socialization and gender nurture. Girls have nearly identical interests in science, technology, math and engineering until middle school, and through every grade do better over all in all of these areas including advanced math. But the issue is we have created a monster in telling our girls that they aren't good at these things, or cut out for them, and we don't even bother to show them the role models that do exist. As to your question of who holds the power, it is interesting that you bring that up to me. Because clearly it does matter. Women are 51% of the population, and hold about 49% of the all the jobs in the US, yet their leadership roles are significantly lacking. And that isn't because they wouldn't be good at it, but rather social conditioning permits us to call into question a woman's ability to do well, even when we know they are capable, may bring a really great and different perspective to the table, and that they can be powerful and in control in the same way a man can be.
|
|
|
Post by jmurray on Jul 31, 2014 16:11:00 GMT
Stef I think my comments regarding power have been taken as meaning that's all I think is important for women to aspire to. I totally agree it's not the only benchmark of success, in fact I'm not even sure it should be in the top 10 (certainly isn't for me). So I agree with your view that there are many other areas where we can all hope to excel in love and life.
The point I was trying to make is when power is distributed equally, it helps when decisions are made. And those decisions impact everyone at some point. So I will always want females at that table, as well as men. The same goes to my grey haired comment. I'm not ageist and I'm not criticising older people - male or female. I was just commenting again re the imbalance as I see it. I would love to see representation of all ages, gender, races, etc where social and polictical policies are discussed and developed. But I do stand by my view that age does not equally translate to accomplished or knowledgeable, just as youth does not always equate to smart and quick to adapt. Which is similar to your point that not all women in positions of power are noble or have women's interest at heart, more's the pity.
From a career opportunity standpoint, I've personally been shut out of interviews for specific roles based purely on the fact I am female. Granted, it was years ago but not that long that it didn't prevent me from pursuing the career that I really wanted at that time and (more to the point) was well qualified for.
I totally respect that your values are based on family, service, church etc and it's great that you are free and able to partake in them all. However (and please know I am not trying to be abrasive or argumentative when I say this), you are lucky in that what you wanted to achieve in your life was not impossible due to your gender.
|
|
|
Post by jmurray on Jul 31, 2014 16:17:19 GMT
I see this a little differently. I feel that it doesn't matter how many feminists there are, there will never be a balance of men/women in economic and political power. More men want political and economic (business) power than women. You might as well ask for a balance of men/women in nursing or elementary education. People gravitate to things that are important to them, and that fits into their lifestyle and interests. And, the reason so many of these 'gray haired' men are in positions of power is simply age. They have been doing this for a very long time and are good at it. There aren't many 30 year old CEOs or Senators. But the question begs answering, why does one measure success or importance by who holds 'power'? Is that the measuring stick for determining societal progress? How about happiness? Or satisfaction? Or friendship? Or inner peace? Or good relationships? Or goodness? Or generosity? There are a million things that are of greater value to me than who holds 'power'. I do like what you said about everyone having the same freedom of choices available, with gender never entering into the equation. I guess that's why I don't call myself a feminist. Feminist promotes gender. I promote individuality. I've been researching this all summer, and you are actually incorrect, it's not that young girls and women don't want those jobs (politics and business) or positions of power, but rather that at a very young age (around middle school) we start to really socialize them to go and do the things that "women" do, and we don't have role models in prominent positions (or not many) in these fields. It's vital that we as a society recognize that this is not about gender nature, but socialization and gender nurture. Girls have nearly identical interests in science, technology, math and engineering until middle school, and through every grade do better over all in all of these areas including advanced math. But the issue is we have created a monster in telling our girls that they aren't good at these things, or cut out for them, and we don't even bother to show them the role models that do exist. As to your question of who holds the power, it is interesting that you bring that up to me. Because clearly it does matter. Women are 51% of the population, and hold about 49% of the all the jobs in the US, yet their leadership roles are significantly lacking. And that isn't because they wouldn't be good at it, but rather social conditioning permits us to call into question a woman's ability to do well, even when we know they are capable, may bring a really great and different perspective to the table, and that they can be powerful and in control in the same way a man can be. Exactly Raindancer - you said it better than I did. It's about the conditioning that still exists in some form or other even today (often so subtle we miss it at first glance). And those policies are still driven from the very male dominated top. That's what I think needs to change, and to change policy you have to be at the table.
|
|
ReneeH20
Full Member
Posts: 452
Jun 28, 2014 16:00:48 GMT
|
Post by ReneeH20 on Jul 31, 2014 16:17:24 GMT
I have an adult child that considers themselves transgender. What I have learned in this process that gender is not really cut and dried. There are many facets to gender and socialization is a huge factor.
When my kids were small, my husband worked days and I worked evenings. It was not socially acceptable for my DH to have to leave work at a certain time each night to pick up the kids. He got a lot of crap from his bosses. It was more accepted of his female colleagues to do so.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Jul 31, 2014 16:17:34 GMT
I'm glad you've been doing your research, Raindancer. I think if you'd posted your conclusions 20 years ago, I would have agreed. But today's numbers show a different reality. Girls' graduation rates on every level, from high school to graduate school are higher than for boys and men. Law school, Medical school and similar advanced degrees have higher levels for women than men. I agree that women are not going into the hard sciences, engineering and math in great numbers, but with all of the other advances I see, I just can't attribute that entirely to "social conditioning". I never hear people telling young women today that they "can't do it". On the contrary. Industries are begging for women scientists and engineers. They reach out, but the women aren't going into these fields in great numbers due to any number of factors. If young women want to go into engineering or math, no one is stopping them, and schools and companies are encouraging and welcoming them. There are plenty of role models out there, and no one is hiding them from young women growing up today.
Personally, I don't feel that 'being powerful and in control the same way a man can be' is all that compelling. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Jul 31, 2014 16:25:32 GMT
Thanks for your sensitive reply, jmurray. Yes. I'm lucky that I was never hindered due to my gender. But I was raised to believe I could do anything I set my mind to, even in the 50s and 60s growing up. But I did pick a career path that's pretty evenly distributed men/ women.
I see lots of progress for women, and want it to keep it going; but want to steer the emphasis away from the traditional male-centered priorities of power and money, to the values that truly lead to happiness. They aren't unique to women, but I think as women, we have more power to change the world for good in interpersonal ways than through the boardrooms of the world. It would be great to do both, but I don't long for parity with men in the power arena.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Jul 31, 2014 17:16:04 GMT
I'm glad you've been doing your research, Raindancer. I think if you'd posted your conclusions 20 years ago, I would have agreed. But today's numbers show a different reality. Girls' graduation rates on every level, from high school to graduate school are higher than for boys and men. Law school, Medical school and similar advanced degrees have higher levels for women than men. I agree that women are not going into the hard sciences, engineering and math in great numbers, but with all of the other advances I see, I just can't attribute that entirely to "social conditioning". I never hear people telling young women today that they "can't do it". On the contrary. Industries are begging for women scientists and engineers. They reach out, but the women aren't going into these fields in great numbers due to any number of factors. If young women want to go into engineering or math, no one is stopping them, and schools and companies are encouraging and welcoming them. There are plenty of role models out there, and no one is hiding them from young women growing up today. Personally, I don't feel that 'being powerful and in control the same way a man can be' is all that compelling. But that's just me. I have been doing literal research for a University this summer. This is not outdated information. It's not 20 years old. Girls are graduating with degrees, true. But they are not WORKING in those degrees as often as men, particularly in STEM fields and political fields. Additionally they are still paid less (even in these roles that require higher levels of education), and they are not holding positions of authority as often as men. Those in STEM do fair better than their counter parts in other arenas though, but still on the whole they are not at even close to equal levels. In the case of Medical school for example, women tend to go into medicine in less specialized fields, (which is considered to be a horizontal gap), women often want to go into to fields that allow them to help others, and so medical is a big draw. But even in that realm they are not reaching as high as men for various reasons, including the desire to help more people. It's the same reason why women in Public Health tend to gravitate towards the more social aspects of the field like social work, and clinical work rather than industrial hygiene and environmental science. One way to combat this is to show girls that you can help people through other methods of STEM work, like engineers can design better prosthetic, or build better infrastructure in developing nations, offering ways to help entire populations over individuals. Again, this is a socialization, cultural construct. People ARE stopping women from entering these fields, and it starts at home and in classrooms (which research has shown that both male and female teachers show bias in STEM classes that favors boys over girls). I could go on, but I will stop here. Essentially the social cues and early lack of support for our girls leads us to girls essentially being "stopped". Your perception is nothing more than perception. I really wish it was true though. Sadly, the facts just don't bear that out.
|
|
grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 31, 2014 17:21:46 GMT
Well said Raindancer.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 8, 2024 1:44:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 17:45:53 GMT
I recently finished a Master's degree in Science at a top university in Canada, in one of the hottest and trendiest fields in science right now. There are LOTS of women students -- more than half. And ALL of the technicians are female. But there is a huge imbalance in number of male to female professors in that field. The number of applicants are heavily weighted towards female (probably at least 60-70% females get to the interview stage), but most of the hires are men. I don't think it's that the men are actually more qualified, because to get to the interview stage you really have to be highly qualified.
This does vary by field. My husband is an ecologist and I think about 75% of the profs in his field are female. Maybe not quite that high, but it's definitely more than half of newer, younger professors are female.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 1, 2014 2:23:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Aug 1, 2014 13:22:30 GMT
Very interesting article, Heidi, but that was the late '90s. I know things aren't perfect, but you'd have to admit, they have advanced a lot in the past 15 years or so. And as far as your previous comments about your research, I don't doubt that there are still areas of opportunity for young girls and women that need to be improved. But asserting that 'people are stopping women from entering these fields' without any background or details just makes me wonder. I'm sure it's much more complex than 'stopping women'. There are probably a host of reasons why educators might discourage a young woman from entering a traditional male field of study. Gender bias might be one. But there are probably lots of others too. Unless you dig a little deeper to find out why this might be happening, I am not buying the easy answer: that 'people are stopping women from entering these fields'. I'm sure you've come across other reasons why girls and young women aren't entering traditional male fields in the course of your research, I'd like to hear about them too.
|
|
caro
Drama Llama
Refupea 1130
Posts: 5,222
Jun 26, 2014 14:10:36 GMT
|
Post by caro on Aug 1, 2014 13:25:22 GMT
And that is what feminism means. I am disturbed by the younger generation of women who believe that feminism is hating men, etc. That is exactly what I am saying...so many different definitions. being a feminist has nothing to do with hating men. To me, being a feminist means, among other things, being treated equal in all things, and being allowed to make decisions without recrimination (e.g. having/not having children, stay at home mom/working mom...) Well said!
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 1, 2014 15:02:05 GMT
Very interesting article, Heidi, but that was the late '90s. I know things aren't perfect, but you'd have to admit, they have advanced a lot in the past 15 years or so. And as far as your previous comments about your research, I don't doubt that there are still areas of opportunity for young girls and women that need to be improved. But asserting that 'people are stopping women from entering these fields' without any background or details just makes me wonder. I'm sure it's much more complex than 'stopping women'. There are probably a host of reasons why educators might discourage a young woman from entering a traditional male field of study. Gender bias might be one. But there are probably lots of others too. Unless you dig a little deeper to find out why this might be happening, I am not buying the easy answer: that 'people are stopping women from entering these fields'. I'm sure you've come across other reasons why girls and young women aren't entering traditional male fields in the course of your research, I'd like to hear about them too. I feel like you are just intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. I realize that this article happened in the 90's. Would you like me to dig up the research on this from the last few years? Would you feel better knowing that despite some gains, ultimately we have not come very far in the last 2 decades? What background or details do you want? I'm happy to include large amounts of text that is cited for your reading pleasure if you are truly interested. What are the "lots of other reasons" you think teachers are discouraging girls from pursuing any job they like beyond the fact that they are a girl? And unless I dig a little deeper? WTH? I have done 13 weeks of intensive research, I have multiple binders of journal articles. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass Stef. What have you done to know that I'm so wrong on this topic? Other reasons? Sure. But guess what? Generally speaking, they boil right back down to "girl". You don't have to like it. But pretending it isn't there because you don't want too, or because you don't see it, doesn't make it not real. This is like saying "I like black people and I've never seen them discriminated against". It's bs. (And in case you were wondering, it's still a huge issue in this country that impacts economic stability, health outcomes, and education. You want to really see an problem? Lets talk about black women. They are really getting the shaft.
|
|
|
Post by delilahtwo on Aug 1, 2014 16:54:53 GMT
Raindancer you are my hero!
Nobody has as yet replied to say what men have lost with the implementation of equality for women. Please respondM
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Aug 1, 2014 17:18:26 GMT
I'm not denigrating your research, and I don't deny that there is still gender bias out there. My disagreement with your argument, is that you are saying that girls (young women) are being STOPPED from entering traditional male courses of study or careers. I need to understand how that works. Do the teachers/ instructors/ professors admit that they STOP young women from entering engineering, mathematics, or hard sciences because they are female? Or are girls reporting that they feel they were discouraged from entering these fields/ courses of study because they are female? Some of the reasons that young women might be discouraged from entering traditional male fields might be because they aren't suited for it. It could be academic. Their grades weren't good enough, or test scores weren't up to par. They might be discouraged because the instructor knew the young woman, and felt that a course/ career path in those areas might not be a good fit for that girl. Perhaps the educator knew that the young woman had other skills and talents that might indicate a change of major or field of study. Perhaps isolation, low career reward, stress, long hours, independent research or study, competition, etc. was not as desirable for the young woman. There might be quite a number of reasons, that don't seem obvious if you are just looking for mean old educators who are STOPPING young women from a rewarding and challenging career in the hard sciences or engineering or whatever.
I'm naturally a skeptic when it comes to gender issues. I think that we have made a lot of progress on gender issues in the last 20 years, but if we continue to compare males and females based on the male-constructed benchmarks of power, high income, parity in "important" careers such as science and engineering, politics and business, we'll never focus on the important issues. Why don't we as a society encourage or require parity in other types of careers or courses of study, such as education (primary and secondary), social work, the helping professions? Why don't we encourage or require our young men to go into nursing or teaching? Where are the programs to engage young men in more esoteric, less competitive careers or avocations? Could it be that people just tend to gravitate to the things that they are best suited for? If tons of young women are indeed being physically STOPPED from entering male-dominated study fields or careers, then I'm on board with you. I just can't help but feel it's a lot more nuanced than that. I'm in the Christine Hoff Sommers school of thinking on gender issues, and have done enough reading to know that statistics and studies can often be misleading. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. I just think that there's more to it than meets the eye.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Aug 1, 2014 17:33:38 GMT
I'm not denigrating your research, and I don't deny that there is still gender bias out there. My disagreement with your argument, is that you are saying that girls (young women) are being STOPPED from entering traditional male courses of study or careers. I need to understand how that works. Do the teachers/ instructors/ professors admit that they STOP young women from entering engineering, mathematics, or hard sciences because they are female? Or are girls reporting that they feel they were discouraged from entering these fields/ courses of study because they are female? Some of the reasons that young women might be discouraged from entering traditional male fields might be because they aren't suited for it. It could be academic. Their grades weren't good enough, or test scores weren't up to par. They might be discouraged because the instructor knew the young woman, and felt that a course/ career path in those areas might not be a good fit for that girl. Perhaps the educator knew that the young woman had other skills and talents that might indicate a change of major or field of study. Perhaps isolation, low career reward, stress, long hours, independent research or study, competition, etc. was not as desirable for the young woman. Tiptoeing gently into this question. I think, and this is my opinion, is that young women aren't being stopped so much as discouraged. Academically not up to par? Perhaps, but also consider who is often grading the papers or teaching the class. It is often an incredibly subtle dissuasion. A test where an extra point is deducted off a test question where it may not have been on a male student's test. A paper graded in such a way that a male student's work is unintentionally graded with a different set of standards. A teacher that knows a woman has a husband/child and decides based on his/her experience that they are not up to the course of study-without even giving the young woman (or any woman) a chance to decide for herself. I have worked in my life primarily with "non-traditional" students, a good portion are women who are now coming into the decision that they need further education. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard about how they felt that they were being patronized (and I use that term deliberately.) Conversely, I have also heard a number of stories from men who felt very out of place when attempting educational programs like nursing which has been the purview of women for years. The thing about this type of gender disparity is that it is often deeply ingrained and completely unrecognized by the person who is perpetuating the cycle. They don't consider themselves as being prejudiced against women in certain fields, but based on their own upbringing, experiences and values, it is ingrained in their behavior.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 1, 2014 17:45:39 GMT
I'm not denigrating your research, and I don't deny that there is still gender bias out there. My disagreement with your argument, is that you are saying that girls (young women) are being STOPPED from entering traditional male courses of study or careers. I need to understand how that works. Do the teachers/ instructors/ professors admit that they STOP young women from entering engineering, mathematics, or hard sciences because they are female? Or are girls reporting that they feel they were discouraged from entering these fields/ courses of study because they are female? Some of the reasons that young women might be discouraged from entering traditional male fields might be because they aren't suited for it. It could be academic. Their grades weren't good enough, or test scores weren't up to par. They might be discouraged because the instructor knew the young woman, and felt that a course/ career path in those areas might not be a good fit for that girl. Perhaps the educator knew that the young woman had other skills and talents that might indicate a change of major or field of study. Perhaps isolation, low career reward, stress, long hours, independent research or study, competition, etc. was not as desirable for the young woman. There might be quite a number of reasons, that don't seem obvious if you are just looking for mean old educators who are STOPPING young women from a rewarding and challenging career in the hard sciences or engineering or whatever. I'm naturally a skeptic when it comes to gender issues. I think that we have made a lot of progress on gender issues in the last 20 years, but if we continue to compare males and females based on the male-constructed benchmarks of power, high income, parity in "important" careers such as science and engineering, politics and business, we'll never focus on the important issues. Why don't we as a society encourage or require parity in other types of careers or courses of study, such as education (primary and secondary), social work, the helping professions? Why don't we encourage or require our young men to go into nursing or teaching? Where are the programs to engage young men in more esoteric, less competitive careers or avocations? Could it be that people just tend to gravitate to the things that they are best suited for? If tons of young women are indeed being physically STOPPED from entering male-dominated study fields or careers, then I'm on board with you. I just can't help but feel it's a lot more nuanced than that. I'm in the Christine Hoff Sommers school of thinking on gender issues, and have done enough reading to know that statistics and studies can often be misleading. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. I just think that there's more to it than meets the eye. I feel like we can't really have a conversation if you really believe that I'm talking about someone physically stopping a girl from learning and working towards male dominated fields. Really. It's just a bizarre argument and I don't know how to talk to you about this.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 1, 2014 17:47:35 GMT
I'm not denigrating your research, and I don't deny that there is still gender bias out there. My disagreement with your argument, is that you are saying that girls (young women) are being STOPPED from entering traditional male courses of study or careers. I need to understand how that works. Do the teachers/ instructors/ professors admit that they STOP young women from entering engineering, mathematics, or hard sciences because they are female? Or are girls reporting that they feel they were discouraged from entering these fields/ courses of study because they are female? Some of the reasons that young women might be discouraged from entering traditional male fields might be because they aren't suited for it. It could be academic. Their grades weren't good enough, or test scores weren't up to par. They might be discouraged because the instructor knew the young woman, and felt that a course/ career path in those areas might not be a good fit for that girl. Perhaps the educator knew that the young woman had other skills and talents that might indicate a change of major or field of study. Perhaps isolation, low career reward, stress, long hours, independent research or study, competition, etc. was not as desirable for the young woman. Tiptoeing gently into this question. I think, and this is my opinion, is that young women aren't being stopped so much as discouraged. Academically not up to par? Perhaps, but also consider who is often grading the papers or teaching the class. It is often an incredibly subtle dissuasion. A test where an extra point is deducted off a test question where it may not have been on a male student's test. A paper graded in such a way that a male student's work is unintentionally graded with a different set of standards. A teacher that knows a woman has a husband/child and decides based on his/her experience that they are not up to the course of study-without even giving the young woman (or any woman) a chance to decide for herself. I have worked in my life primarily with "non-traditional" students, a good portion are women who are now coming into the decision that they need further education. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard about how they felt that they were being patronized (and I use that term deliberately.) Conversely, I have also heard a number of stories from men who felt very out of place when attempting educational programs like nursing which has been the purview of women for years. The thing about this type of gender disparity is that it is often deeply ingrained and completely unrecognized by the person who is perpetuating the cycle. They don't consider themselves as being prejudiced against women in certain fields, but based on their own upbringing, experiences and values, it is ingrained in their behavior. And the sad part is that girls are academically ahead of boys, and new research shows this to be the case for the past 100 years. Even in math and science. Even in high school. Across the board, girls are academically achieving.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Aug 1, 2014 19:15:48 GMT
Well, you're the one who used the word. You're the one doing the research, so I figured you must have some reason to use the word STOPPED.
Yes that is so true. And as Anxiousmom said, one of the unintended consequences of promoting women and girls academically, is often it's the boys that suffer.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Aug 1, 2014 19:25:24 GMT
Here's an interesting article that I think points out some of the unintended consequences of educational reforms that have benefitted and favored girls in the past 30 years or so. (You might connect the dots in such a way as to say that it's one of the ways men and boys have been adversely affected by feminism.) Link
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Aug 1, 2014 19:43:54 GMT
And as Anxiousmom said, one of the unintended consequences of promoting women and girls academically, is often it's the boys that suffer. Oh my gosh, I am so sorry if that is what came across in my response somewhere, because I that isn't what I meant AT ALL. If you are referring to my comment about men in nursing, it was there to reference that there are gender inequities for men as well. They fight just as hard to be there as women do/did in medical school. They didn't suffer because a woman was placed ahead of them, they suffer(ed) because they are fighting to be in a field that was historically filled with women. You should know that I am the mother of boys-I do not feel that they have in any way suffered academically. I haven't run across a single incidence where promoting women/girl academically has adversely effected them. What *has* effected them is living in a state that only pays lip service to funding education and that is pretty universal for both male AND female. ETA: I did read the article that you provided. While I do find the article interesting, having women lobby for more educational dollars toward non-traditional jobs for women is not the direct result of "feminism" but a recognition that women are underrepresented in certain job sectors that would allow them to earn a living wage. Historically, employment opportunities for women are not reaching wages that allow them to rise above subsistence living. I think, and this is again my opinion, that the issues outlined in the article are more highlighting the fact that the issues with educating boys is a lack of understanding HOW to appropriately educate them. I can get behind that...again, as the mother of boys, I can see how the traditional school setting doesn't work for all boys. But, that is more a function of traditional classroom matrices than it is a promotion of education of girls over boys.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Aug 2, 2014 0:07:53 GMT
I am so sorry, I drew the wrong conclusion from your statement. I see what you were saying now.
However, I do think that, despite your own experiences with your boys (and I have boys too), educational policies and trends that favor girls, often ignoring or denying funding and programs for boys, HAVE hurt boys in ways that are now pretty obvious. It's not just a matter of how you treat or educate boys- I'm sure most teachers do their best to teach boys and girls fairly and appropriately. But if money, programs and resources are being channelled to improving girls' outcomes, and similar programs for boys have been denied, delayed or ignored, then that means that boys have been systematically and deliberately penalized. It's not that I don't believe that girls have needed programs and policies to encourage and empower them. I do. It's just that I personally believe that gender 'experts', based on feminist ideals, have often ignored young men's unique strengths, needs and problems, and created a political and social construct that treats boys as the problem. Unfortunately, education is a zero-sum game. You give more to one group, then someone else gets less.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Aug 2, 2014 0:38:18 GMT
I am so sorry, I drew the wrong conclusion from your statement. I see what you were saying now. However, I do think that, despite your own experiences with your boys (and I have boys too), educational policies and trends that favor girls, often ignoring or denying funding and programs for boys, HAVE hurt boys in ways that are now pretty obvious. It's not just a matter of how you treat or educate boys- I'm sure most teachers do their best to teach boys and girls fairly and appropriately. But if money, programs and resources are being channelled to improving girls' outcomes, and similar programs for boys have been denied, delayed or ignored, then that means that boys have been systematically and deliberately penalized. It's not that I don't believe that girls have needed programs and policies to encourage and empower them. I do. It's just that I personally believe that gender 'experts', based on feminist ideals, have often ignored young men's unique strengths, needs and problems, and created a political and social construct that treats boys as the problem. Unfortunately, education is a zero-sum game. You give more to one group, then someone else gets less. You know, I am not sure that I can agree with you...but that is okay. It is discussion and that is always a good thing, right? The beauty of it is that because we disagree, we can both work to further what we believe in and in the end, a whole lot of people (both male and female) reap the rewards.
|
|
|
Post by stefdesign on Aug 2, 2014 3:37:29 GMT
Thank you! I agree!
|
|