"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
Yes, I have. I can massively simplify if you need me to:
Premise 1: STEM has a macho culture.
Premise 2: Most women are not attracted to macho cultures any more than most men are attracted to feminized cultures.
( If this is not common sense to you, evidence for those premises be found in this Wikipedia entry and in the references at the bottom of the page and all over the rest of the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Explanations_for_low_representation_of_women )
Logical conclusion: Few women are attracted to STEM fields.
That is an explanation.
That Wikipedia link also lists lots of other explanations. Note how none of those are "women just aren't interested in STEM, okay?".
Yes, and I already addressed that by saying maybe the reason why it has a "macho culture", if there is one (I was wanting an explanation as to how it is a macho culture), that maybe that culture was established due to the field being male dominated, not that it has a macho culture which attracts men to those fields making it male dominated field. So even if this "macho culture" did exist and was taken away, where does it show women would still be interested in those fields in the first place and it doesn't remain a male dominated field that then later created a "macho-culture" due to that?
You seem to have the impression that if a field is not equal, then there must be some sort of societal problem with it rather than sexual dimorphism, in which one can say "Well, there isn't an equal representation in prison, ergo there is a socital issue of which makes men the majority in prison.
As for the Wiki link, I don't read Wiki, as I am sure you may know why someone wouldn't, so link the specific references in a response if you are willing. Not clawing through it all to find a few bits that are relevant to the discussion.
I see, you're looking for examples of macho culture in STEM. Most of the social activities surrounding STEM communities cater to masculine interests since men are the majority. Most STEM instructors are men, and provide a masculine culture by treating male students as significantly more naturally competent than female students. This is shown in recent, Western research ("Rethinking Single Sex Teaching" by Ivinson and Murphy, 2007).
I don't assume anything - I look at explanations as rationally as possible and dismiss them according to evidence, and having done so I strongly believe that biological explanations for gendered behaviour are not sufficient. Can you tell me which biological distinction/s between men and women would lead women to be unattracted to STEM fields and why, and why sexual dimorphic explanations are better than explanations focused on societal structure?
Isn't 'Rethinking Single Sex Teaching' primarily about single-sex comprehensive schools?
Not sure it really addresses gender inequality within mixed classroom scenarios, although I may be wrong.
Regardless, I'm of the opinion that traditional perceptions of roles are perpetuated from generation to generation unless there's a concerted intervention.
So I'd guess that, before a female even enters the educational environment within which a macho or patriarchal culture may exist, they are selective based on traditional preconceptions of the environment, and will typically opt for something different.
In other words, because they so seldom see women in STEM roles, they presume it isn't for them and go for a more gender-neutral or feminine role.
So rather than an oppressively masculine subculture inhibiting women from entering certain sectors, I'd say it's the simple notion that 'women don't do that kind of thing'.
Single-sex comprehensive classrooms were the unit of study, yes. Although I don't think it's a stretch to generalise it to mixed-sex classrooms, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the image of a subject (i.e. its "culture") created by that impacts perception of it going into adulthood. I would say the research focuses on single-sex classrooms in mixed-sex schools (and I think it is worth emphasizing that the school in the study was mixed-sex even though the classes were single-sex) because the teachers' behaviour in relation to the gender of a set of students lends itself to observation more readily when a classroom is single-sex, not because the research was intended only to apply to single-sex classrooms in mixed-sex schools.
I think I have allowed my points to become confused (my own damned fault). One reason why women don't do STEM jobs *even if they haven't* been heavily exposed to inter-generational gender roles myths is the masculinized subculture. Gender roles myths are influenced by masculinization/feminization of subcultures, but I didn't mean to put the two on the same level.
My position is a little different to yours. I would not say that society reproduces by default unless there is an intervention. I would say that there also has to be a factor causing society to reproduce, not just the absence of a factor causing it to change.
What social activities are "macho"? Appealing to the majority in a field is not proof of a "macho club", it's appealing to the demographic primarily in the field. Most STEM instructors are men, ok, but why? How is that somehow creating a macho club? Being a male dominant profession is not crating some sort of culture that is not accepting of women. More men applied for those positions, so more men get those positions. That book you put in brackets, is there somewhere I can get the information without having to buy it? I don't plan on buying a book to discuss something on IIN.
Unorganized social events are spontaneous conversation, and where there is more men the topics of conversation are more likely to appeal to men. Examples of such topics include football and cars. Organised social events usually revolve around masculine interests, like heavy drinking and go-karts and paint-balling. Not that there aren't plenty of girls who enjoy those things; it's just a reality that those are interests with a predominantly male appeal.
I know it's not evidence of a club that deliberately alienates women. I was extremely careful not to even imply I thought this was the case. Alienation of women is a completely unintended side-effect of a masculinized subculture. Whether it is intended or unintended is immaterial. This discussion is about whether or not a masculinized subculture even exists, not what the level of intent was.
You're dragging us around in circles. The discussion has moved on to *why* more men applied for those positions, which is the medium-term cause for why more men are in those positions. Whether it is is biological (as you said you thought it was) or societal (as I think it is), there must surely be some reason why men apply and women don't?
I'm afraid I couldn't tell you where to find a book. I was introduced to the concepts in a class, that book was given as the reference and I have access to books via my university's library. I'd be very surprised if a summary didn't exist somewhere in some form, but I couldn't tell you where that was or if it was good.
Is it normal i think it would be a disaster if women ruled the world?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You've still not explained how they do so, which is what I was primarily getting at.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, I have. I can massively simplify if you need me to:
Premise 1: STEM has a macho culture.
Premise 2: Most women are not attracted to macho cultures any more than most men are attracted to feminized cultures.
( If this is not common sense to you, evidence for those premises be found in this Wikipedia entry and in the references at the bottom of the page and all over the rest of the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Explanations_for_low_representation_of_women )
Logical conclusion: Few women are attracted to STEM fields.
That is an explanation.
That Wikipedia link also lists lots of other explanations. Note how none of those are "women just aren't interested in STEM, okay?".
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, and I already addressed that by saying maybe the reason why it has a "macho culture", if there is one (I was wanting an explanation as to how it is a macho culture), that maybe that culture was established due to the field being male dominated, not that it has a macho culture which attracts men to those fields making it male dominated field. So even if this "macho culture" did exist and was taken away, where does it show women would still be interested in those fields in the first place and it doesn't remain a male dominated field that then later created a "macho-culture" due to that?
You seem to have the impression that if a field is not equal, then there must be some sort of societal problem with it rather than sexual dimorphism, in which one can say "Well, there isn't an equal representation in prison, ergo there is a socital issue of which makes men the majority in prison.
As for the Wiki link, I don't read Wiki, as I am sure you may know why someone wouldn't, so link the specific references in a response if you are willing. Not clawing through it all to find a few bits that are relevant to the discussion.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I see, you're looking for examples of macho culture in STEM. Most of the social activities surrounding STEM communities cater to masculine interests since men are the majority. Most STEM instructors are men, and provide a masculine culture by treating male students as significantly more naturally competent than female students. This is shown in recent, Western research ("Rethinking Single Sex Teaching" by Ivinson and Murphy, 2007).
I don't assume anything - I look at explanations as rationally as possible and dismiss them according to evidence, and having done so I strongly believe that biological explanations for gendered behaviour are not sufficient. Can you tell me which biological distinction/s between men and women would lead women to be unattracted to STEM fields and why, and why sexual dimorphic explanations are better than explanations focused on societal structure?
--
disthing
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Interesting discussion you're both having.
Isn't 'Rethinking Single Sex Teaching' primarily about single-sex comprehensive schools?
Not sure it really addresses gender inequality within mixed classroom scenarios, although I may be wrong.
Regardless, I'm of the opinion that traditional perceptions of roles are perpetuated from generation to generation unless there's a concerted intervention.
So I'd guess that, before a female even enters the educational environment within which a macho or patriarchal culture may exist, they are selective based on traditional preconceptions of the environment, and will typically opt for something different.
In other words, because they so seldom see women in STEM roles, they presume it isn't for them and go for a more gender-neutral or feminine role.
So rather than an oppressively masculine subculture inhibiting women from entering certain sectors, I'd say it's the simple notion that 'women don't do that kind of thing'.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Single-sex comprehensive classrooms were the unit of study, yes. Although I don't think it's a stretch to generalise it to mixed-sex classrooms, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the image of a subject (i.e. its "culture") created by that impacts perception of it going into adulthood. I would say the research focuses on single-sex classrooms in mixed-sex schools (and I think it is worth emphasizing that the school in the study was mixed-sex even though the classes were single-sex) because the teachers' behaviour in relation to the gender of a set of students lends itself to observation more readily when a classroom is single-sex, not because the research was intended only to apply to single-sex classrooms in mixed-sex schools.
I think I have allowed my points to become confused (my own damned fault). One reason why women don't do STEM jobs *even if they haven't* been heavily exposed to inter-generational gender roles myths is the masculinized subculture. Gender roles myths are influenced by masculinization/feminization of subcultures, but I didn't mean to put the two on the same level.
My position is a little different to yours. I would not say that society reproduces by default unless there is an intervention. I would say that there also has to be a factor causing society to reproduce, not just the absence of a factor causing it to change.
What social activities are "macho"? Appealing to the majority in a field is not proof of a "macho club", it's appealing to the demographic primarily in the field. Most STEM instructors are men, ok, but why? How is that somehow creating a macho club? Being a male dominant profession is not crating some sort of culture that is not accepting of women. More men applied for those positions, so more men get those positions. That book you put in brackets, is there somewhere I can get the information without having to buy it? I don't plan on buying a book to discuss something on IIN.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Unorganized social events are spontaneous conversation, and where there is more men the topics of conversation are more likely to appeal to men. Examples of such topics include football and cars. Organised social events usually revolve around masculine interests, like heavy drinking and go-karts and paint-balling. Not that there aren't plenty of girls who enjoy those things; it's just a reality that those are interests with a predominantly male appeal.
I know it's not evidence of a club that deliberately alienates women. I was extremely careful not to even imply I thought this was the case. Alienation of women is a completely unintended side-effect of a masculinized subculture. Whether it is intended or unintended is immaterial. This discussion is about whether or not a masculinized subculture even exists, not what the level of intent was.
You're dragging us around in circles. The discussion has moved on to *why* more men applied for those positions, which is the medium-term cause for why more men are in those positions. Whether it is is biological (as you said you thought it was) or societal (as I think it is), there must surely be some reason why men apply and women don't?
I'm afraid I couldn't tell you where to find a book. I was introduced to the concepts in a class, that book was given as the reference and I have access to books via my university's library. I'd be very surprised if a summary didn't exist somewhere in some form, but I couldn't tell you where that was or if it was good.