Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AL.com)   Alabama public school separates boys and girls for all classes "because boys are better than girls because their bodies receive testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month". The ACLU has a problem with this   (blog.al.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Birmingham's Huffman Middle School, ACLU, Alabama, Office of Civil Rights, gender stereotypes, U.S. Department of Education  
•       •       •

16197 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2012 at 3:45 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



368 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-10 12:55:30 AM  
Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.
 
2012-12-10 12:59:09 AM  
As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.
 
2012-12-10 01:00:54 AM  

Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.


That argument is bizarre. I went through 12 years of Catholic, the first eight years mixed gender, the last four segregated. The rationale? Mixed gender would be too distracting for high schoolers (which has a certain validity). But not because boys were smarter.
 
2012-12-10 01:03:43 AM  
Having separate sex education classes by gender really doesn't sound like a problem. I'm pretty sure mine were. But then you get the section Subby quoted:

According to the complaint filed by the ACLU, instructions for teaching boys call for stressing heroic behavior that shows what it means to "be a man." According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

and I'm all with the ACLU here. What a crock of shiat.
 
2012-12-10 01:08:10 AM  
It makes sense for drivers' ed.
 
2012-12-10 01:09:36 AM  

GAT_00: and I'm all with the ACLU here. What a crock of shiat.


I dunno, man. When I get a surge of testosterone I get REAL good at math.
 
2012-12-10 01:12:32 AM  

doglover: Here is a stereotype I know about one of the parties in this headline with no other context

 

t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-10 01:17:31 AM  

kingoomieiii: doglover: Here is a stereotype I know about one of the parties in this headline with no other context 

[t0.gstatic.com image 278x181]


I say, I say, I say, that's a joke, son.
 
2012-12-10 01:18:34 AM  

Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.


Jake. It's Alabama. You can't do anything about it.

/Spent a lot of my life on the AL/TN/MS border. Jesus Christ, the stupidity.
//Jesus Christ seemed to have a lot to do with their stupidity, actually
 
2012-12-10 01:42:35 AM  

BronyMedic: Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.

Jake. It's Alabama. You can't do anything about it.

/Spent a lot of my life on the AL/TN/MS border. Jesus Christ, the stupidity.
//Jesus Christ seemed to have a lot to do with their stupidity, actually


Huntsville is the sole bastion of sanity, and even it's fading as of late. Too many old people retiring from the Arsenal and deciding in their spare time they need to get involved in everyone else's lives.
 
2012-12-10 01:53:00 AM  
Figured the quote was an exaggeration or just made up by subby... no, no, it's real... and from the year 2012.

But hey, the SEC is a good at football.
 
2012-12-10 01:55:14 AM  
FTFA: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

Downloaded and read the PDF complaint. Seems to center around this book:

i.imgur.com 

Does a lot of "gender science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean, except it heavily priveldges nature over nurt
 
2012-12-10 02:03:03 AM  

simplicimus: I say, I say, I say, that's a joke, son.


Both the premise and the punchline were the same stereotype. It wasn't funny.

END
LAZY
HUMOR
\o/
|
/\

 
2012-12-10 02:23:05 AM  

BronyMedic: Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.

Jake. It's Alabama. You can't do anything about it.

/Spent a lot of my life on the AL/TN/MS border. Jesus Christ, the stupidity.
//Jesus Christ seemed to have a lot to do with their stupidity, actually



That is....quite unfortunate.
 
2012-12-10 02:25:55 AM  
According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

20prospect.files.wordpress.com

/Oblig, hot and wrong.
 
2012-12-10 02:30:28 AM  
Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.
 
2012-12-10 02:33:55 AM  
How about we stop sending foreign aid to third-world developing countries and send it to farking Alabama?
 
2012-12-10 02:55:25 AM  
I've always thought Birmingham was the most segregated city I've ever been too and well this is just proving me right in a different way.
/sad
 
2012-12-10 02:56:42 AM  

TheHopeDiamond: How about we stop sending foreign aid to third-world developing countries and send it to farking Alabama?


How about you stop making fun of the best school system on the planet? Alabama was first place out of fifty states in getting the lowest science test scores. It's no wonder we kick your butts at football.
 
2012-12-10 02:59:28 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.


They likes their wimminfolks fleshy.
 
2012-12-10 03:31:12 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.

They likes their wimminfolks fleshy.


We're in America. That's where school kids start these days.

/fat
 
2012-12-10 03:37:13 AM  
BLAGGH.

I do NOT like my wimmenfolks fleshy.

I trot the streets and human-watch and eeeewww the sights I see.
 
2012-12-10 03:40:39 AM  

kingoomieiii: doglover: Here is a stereotype I know about one of the parties in this headline with no other context 

[t0.gstatic.com image 278x181]


i25.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-10 03:49:59 AM  
Holy shiat. I thought the headline was one of those quotes that doesn't appear in the article Fark cliche. Was this book the article talks about written in the 40's?
 
2012-12-10 03:51:59 AM  

Kittypie070: BLAGGH.

I do NOT like my wimmenfolks fleshy.

I trot the streets and human-watch and eeeewww the sights I see.


Kittypie070: BLAGGH.

I do NOT like my wimmenfolks fleshy.

I trot the streets and human-watch and eeeewww the sights I see.


Wait are you in Bama? I'm confused now but I do agree, hmmm.
 
2012-12-10 03:54:06 AM  

Snapper Carr: Was this book the article talks about written in the 40's?


Answered my own question - it was published in 2000
 
2012-12-10 03:55:02 AM  
Makes sense. Beating Your Wife 101 would result in better scores from the males.
 
2012-12-10 03:55:35 AM  
I was gonna try to say something smart or funny, but screw it. Fark everyone involved with making this happen. THIS is states rights in action, folks, and boy howdy, ain't they some clever sumbiatches? 

Idiots! Goddamn idiots are in charge! What the actual fark is wrong with us?
 
2012-12-10 03:55:55 AM  
holy crap. I thought subby was making that up. My apologies, good sir/madam. You were, indeed, quoting from TFA.

I can't believe parents are allowing this. If every parent took their child out of the school, or at least threatened to, perhaps the school would smarten up.

/don't really believe that, but I live in hope.
 
2012-12-10 03:56:24 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

Downloaded and read the PDF complaint. Seems to center around this book:

[i.imgur.com image 350x523] 

Does a lot of "gender science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean, except it heavily priveldges nature over nurt

~
~
So why ARE boys better at math? My reference is a similar-sounding book called Brain Sex.
i50.tinypic.com

IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

b-b-but sexism at universities!

b-b-but child rearing duties!

b-b-but male hegemony!
 
2012-12-10 04:02:07 AM  

Big Ramifications: Somacandra: FTFA: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

Downloaded and read the PDF complaint. Seems to center around this book:

[i.imgur.com image 350x523] 

Does a lot of "gender science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean, except it heavily priveldges nature over nurt
~
~
So why ARE boys better at math? My reference is a similar-sounding book called Brain Sex.
[i50.tinypic.com image 121x187]

IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

b-b-but sexism at universities!

b-b-but child rearing duties!

b-b-but male hegemony!


So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
 
2012-12-10 04:05:53 AM  
Wasn't this a simpsons episode :/ ? Does the school board learn nothing from Fox animation domination?
 
2012-12-10 04:11:12 AM  

Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?

~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?
 
2012-12-10 04:13:11 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Kittypie070: BLAGGH.

I do NOT like my wimmenfolks fleshy.

I trot the streets and human-watch and eeeewww the sights I see.


Wait are you in Bama? I'm confused now but I do agree, hmmm.


I visited there once.
 
2012-12-10 04:14:34 AM  
The older I get, the more absolutely stupid humanity seems to become.

I grew up in the 50's and got used to Stupid, but by the 60's, changes were taking place that would be profound and for the overall good. Now we exist in a world of electronic miracles, which has shrunk the world dramatically, opened up borders, crossed the barriers of tradition, language, religion and society, exposed people to the thoughts of millions and brought vast amounts of education to your home, for free, at the click of a mouse.

I've seen 'liberation' in many forms and freedoms flourish like never before. I've watched traditions fall and civilizations begin to blend as free thinkers began to be heard.

However, as always, there seems to be an undercurrent of Stupid, which threatens to suck civilization back down into the Dark Ages and some people cling to archaic ideas and hire lawyers more than willing to take their money and tie up the courts in an effort to suppress the rights of others and make a joke of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Maybe pushing so much electronic advances on people was done before the species had matured enough to grasp them. The Internet and cell phones have given rise to new, expansive outlets for the Lunatic Fringe and hate groups, people who spew hate over things they don't understand and others who spread misinformation mainly because they can.

Stupid seems to thrive in the Southern States of the USA, where many folks are still fighting the civil war and cling to old traditions and philosophies.

Whoever is responsible for reinstating a segregational system that was forcibly ended by law at the end of the 18th century needs to have his or her collective arses kicked and loose their positions of power and influence.

Humanity never fails to disappoint me.
 
2012-12-10 04:16:52 AM  

Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?


Here's your answer: They aren't. Through middle school girls tend to edge out boys in math scores on standardized tests. In high school they tend to tie.
 
2012-12-10 04:17:55 AM  
boys are different from girls? amazing! no way....

and the quote from the headline is never found in the article
 
2012-12-10 04:18:53 AM  
[kitten jumps up carefully into Rik01's lap, purrs nicely]
 
2012-12-10 04:19:32 AM  

Rik01: The older I get, the more absolutely stupid humanity seems to become.

I grew up in the 50's and got used to Stupid, but by the 60's, changes were taking place that would be profound and for the overall good. Now we exist in a world of electronic miracles, which has shrunk the world dramatically, opened up borders, crossed the barriers of tradition, language, religion and society, exposed people to the thoughts of millions and brought vast amounts of education to your home, for free, at the click of a mouse.

I've seen 'liberation' in many forms and freedoms flourish like never before. I've watched traditions fall and civilizations begin to blend as free thinkers began to be heard.

However, as always, there seems to be an undercurrent of Stupid, which threatens to suck civilization back down into the Dark Ages and some people cling to archaic ideas and hire lawyers more than willing to take their money and tie up the courts in an effort to suppress the rights of others and make a joke of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Maybe pushing so much electronic advances on people was done before the species had matured enough to grasp them. The Internet and cell phones have given rise to new, expansive outlets for the Lunatic Fringe and hate groups, people who spew hate over things they don't understand and others who spread misinformation mainly because they can.

Stupid seems to thrive in the Southern States of the USA, where many folks are still fighting the civil war and cling to old traditions and philosophies.

Whoever is responsible for reinstating a segregational system that was forcibly ended by law at the end of the 18th century needs to have his or her collective arses kicked and loose their positions of power and influence.

Humanity never fails to disappoint me.

 
2012-12-10 04:21:36 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

Downloaded and read the PDF complaint. Seems to center around this book:

[i.imgur.com image 350x523] 

Does a lot of "gender science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean, except it heavily privileged nature over nurture


From what I read on his website, this guy is basically a teacher who went and did "post-graduate" work in Educational psychology, and now claims to be a neuro-psychological specialist... Even so, educational psychologist ≠ neuro-psychologist, nor anything close to it. It is this kind of garbage science that they teach you isn't true in your first year of psychology...
 
2012-12-10 04:22:00 AM  
CSS time:

They tried splitting out girls and boys into our own gym classes one year at my high school. The reasoning was that girls and boys have different interests in physical activities. Really, I think my teacher just really, really wanted to teach dance and they knew the boys wouldn't go for it.

Well, we girls didn't really go for it, either. It was supposed to be some six-week course, going through all the different major types of dance. ...while the boys got to screw around playing basketball. By the second week, we were pretty close to mutiny, and if you have never seen 70+ teenaged girls all sulking around in a room with a smoldering look of fury in their eyes, well. You can imagine.

Anyway, by that point, my teacher, god love her, realized what was happening. So she decided to hold a vote. Continue dance or play tennis with the shiattiest ping-pong paddle-sized plastic racquets you've ever seen? And oh man, it was like a TV show, the way she said it all. "Who would like to continue with our wonderful study of dance, ranging in a wide selection of important historical, cultural, blahblahblah" and on. One girl raised her hand. Then she said, flatly, "...and who would like to play tennis?"

We voted for tennis.

Best month of gym class ever, eight of us to a court with those shiatty plastic racquets and all. We had a hell of a great time.

I think that's what finally broke my teacher's heart in gym, though, and convinced her to stick to teaching English. She was great at that.
 
2012-12-10 04:23:46 AM  

giftedmadness: and the quote from the headline is never found in the article


Know how I know you didn't read the article?
 
2012-12-10 04:25:05 AM  
Do public schools have liberties like that?
 
2012-12-10 04:26:01 AM  

Big Ramifications: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.


That's an interesting question. When I was at university, maths was roughly 50:50 at undergraduate level and roughly 20:1 male to female at postgrad. Physics, on the other hand, had a much higher proportion of women postgrads than undergrads.
 
2012-12-10 04:26:36 AM  
Are the Asian and Eastern European students in different classes also?
/They have kilotons of testosterone following in each one of them
 
2012-12-10 04:29:35 AM  
Did these assclowns fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down?
 
2012-12-10 04:31:34 AM  
"the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone"

When I get a surge of testosterone, all I can think about is multiplying. Am I right? amirite? guys?
 
2012-12-10 04:35:03 AM  
It doesn't make a lot of sense. If this program is so great, you might as well test kids for their testosterone levels so they're in the right group. Testosterone levels vary wildly between individuals. I'm an XY male with idiopathic secondary hypogonadism (basically a pituitary issue causes me to have low testosterone and they don't know why) and I have similar testosterone levels to an XX friend of mine who has PCOS. I went through two years of calculus in high school (I forget what they called it, AB, BC, soemthing like that), and did fine with testosterone levels that I assume were low back then as well.

But to throw all boys together and all girls together is a bit crude scientifically (if there really was any science to begin with).

I can also tell you the gay kids will suffer. It will be hell. The same way that they say there are less distractions, being with only the same gender becomes this torturous world where you observe what you like but can't do anything about while having to try to act like a normal person to not get found out. In short, gay guys need straight girls. Especially in Alabama.
 
2012-12-10 04:35:17 AM  
Oh, so now science is "bad"?
 
2012-12-10 04:36:35 AM  

Porous Horace: Oh, so now science is "bad"?


This word doesn't mean what I think you think it means in this context.
 
2012-12-10 04:42:20 AM  

ghostwind: Somacandra: FTFA: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

Downloaded and read the PDF complaint. Seems to center around this book:

[i.imgur.com image 350x523] 

Does a lot of "gender science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean, except it heavily privileged nature over nurture

From what I read on his website, this guy is basically a teacher who went and did "post-graduate" work in Educational psychology, and now claims to be a neuro-psychological specialist... Even so, educational psychologist ≠ neuro-psychologist, nor anything close to it. It is this kind of garbage science that they teach you isn't true in your first year of psychology...


Phrases like "neuro-psychological specialist" are words that are made up by shady "counselors" to make it sound as if they have more expertise than they really do while avoiding legal troubles by calling themselves psychologists. Basically, this guy has written a bunch of books for consumption by the general population, and as far as I can tell, doesn't have a single peer-reviewed article published in any psychology journals. What this all boils down to is that he very likely doesn't have a single damn shred of evidence to support many of his unique assertions, but plenty of foolish people will buy these books, read them, and swear by them. And when one of those people is an educator, that's when you get weak rationales for things like gender-separated classes.
 
2012-12-10 04:42:23 AM  

ByOwlLight: giftedmadness: and the quote from the headline is never found in the article

Know how I know you didn't read the article?


Don't mind him, he also said Feminism is a mental disorder.

/though I have to admire the amount of stupidity he manages to cram into a such a short post
 
2012-12-10 04:44:10 AM  

Serious Black: Did these assclowns fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down?


They fell out of the family tree and farked every sibling on the way down.
 
2012-12-10 04:44:40 AM  

swingerofbirches: It doesn't make a lot of sense. If this program is so great, you might as well test kids for their testosterone levels so they're in the right group. Testosterone levels vary wildly between individuals. I'm an XY male with idiopathic secondary hypogonadism (basically a pituitary issue causes me to have low testosterone and they don't know why) and I have similar testosterone levels to an XX friend of mine who has PCOS. I went through two years of calculus in high school (I forget what they called it, AB, BC, soemthing like that), and did fine with testosterone levels that I assume were low back then as well.

But to throw all boys together and all girls together is a bit crude scientifically (if there really was any science to begin with).

I can also tell you the gay kids will suffer. It will be hell. The same way that they say there are less distractions, being with only the same gender becomes this torturous world where you observe what you like but can't do anything about while having to try to act like a normal person to not get found out. In short, gay guys need straight girls. Especially in Alabama.


I think something that many people overlook with these kinds of correlations is that elevated testosterone does not mean a whole lot at the end of the day... the brain only has a certain number testosterone receptors in the brain. Produce more than the receptors can handle, then nothing happens... At the end of the day, the author that wrote this book probably has a very limited understanding of the endocrine system and how it works in the body. What is even worse, is that the educators have even less of an understanding of it than he does...  The end result is an ACLU lawsuit against the school.
 
2012-12-10 04:59:04 AM  
Everybody knows the true rugged, testosterone-filled manly men are to be found in the Mathematics Departments of universities.

*sigh* And this on Ada Lovelace's birthday.
 
2012-12-10 05:06:04 AM  

ByOwlLight: CSS time:

They tried splitting out girls and boys into our own gym classes one year at my high school. The reasoning was that girls and boys have different interests in physical activities. Really, I think my teacher just really, really wanted to teach dance and they knew the boys wouldn't go for it.

Well, we girls didn't really go for it, either. It was supposed to be some six-week course, going through all the different major types of dance. ...while the boys got to screw around playing basketball. By the second week, we were pretty close to mutiny, and if you have never seen 70+ teenaged girls all sulking around in a room with a smoldering look of fury in their eyes, well. You can imagine.

Anyway, by that point, my teacher, god love her, realized what was happening. So she decided to hold a vote. Continue dance or play tennis with the shiattiest ping-pong paddle-sized plastic racquets you've ever seen? And oh man, it was like a TV show, the way she said it all. "Who would like to continue with our wonderful study of dance, ranging in a wide selection of important historical, cultural, blahblahblah" and on. One girl raised her hand. Then she said, flatly, "...and who would like to play tennis?"

We voted for tennis.

Best month of gym class ever, eight of us to a court with those shiatty plastic racquets and all. We had a hell of a great time.

I think that's what finally broke my teacher's heart in gym, though, and convinced her to stick to teaching English. She was great at that.


Wow, thats the exact opposite of my experience in middle school. Part of our required PE curriculum was to learn folk dances from all over the world, from the American south to Japan, Israel, Mexico etc. Some of the dances required us to partner up and hold hands. Obviously there wasn't a perfect 50/50 split of gender in the class, so there were a bunch of same sex dance partnerships going on. Our teacher said "Anyone who complains will have to run laps" so no one complained.

Surprisingly, it was the best PE class we had ever had. Unlike previous PE classes were we would play sports and compete against each other, the folk dance classes required the entire class to work together to perform and pass. Everyone looked forward to class and was always in good spirits afterwards, both the boys and girls. By the end of the class we had learned several dances from many different cultures flawlessly. I don't think I ever came out of a PE class feeling so accomplished.
 
2012-12-10 05:08:00 AM  
"Be a Man" has an unintentional comedy homo-erotic undercurrent to it - I bet the emphasis is on manly sports like wrestling and football. Probably just turf out loads of little Putins.
 
2012-12-10 05:22:43 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Serious Black: Did these assclowns fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down?

They fell out of the family tree and farked every sibling on the way down.


It's a shame you're gay.

/not really though
 
182
2012-12-10 05:23:59 AM  

fusillade762: As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.


wow! just wow.
 
2012-12-10 05:24:04 AM  
Both my brother and his wife are engineers, so I'm getting a kick....
 
2012-12-10 05:31:17 AM  
Eh, I attended single sex education, and I felt like it was very paternalistic; even tho almost all the teachers and administrators were female, the few who were male were more often than not busy farking the students. But the treating us like small children may have just been the catholic influence.

We didn't have pe where we broke a sweat, but that may have been cuz the school was too poor to afford locker rooms or showers.

Nonetheless, there are lots of benefits of single sex education, it should just be by choice, not force.
/css

I hope a better news outlet picks up this story and expands on it, npr maybe. I'd like to hear from some of the parents and/or the students.
 
2012-12-10 05:33:14 AM  
I was born missing a fully functional endocrine system, which was really noticed until puberty. I produce minimal amounts of testosterone and pretty much nothing else. Math in all its form was a struggle for me throughout school, but now I do math in my head. This makes me living proof that the introduction of synthetic female hormones creates mathematicians. Makes as much damn sense as this guys ideas.

I know it's not PC to test children and then track them either towards college or vo-tech, but it's a hell of lot better than this idea.
 
2012-12-10 05:35:56 AM  
Can we just dedicate an entire HD channel to Alabama and give David Attenborough a contract?
 
2012-12-10 05:39:27 AM  

cherryl taggart: I was born missing a fully functional endocrine system, which was really noticed until puberty. I produce minimal amounts of testosterone and pretty much nothing else. Math in all its form was a struggle for me throughout school, but now I do math in my head. This makes me living proof that the introduction of synthetic female hormones creates mathematicians. Makes as much damn sense as this guys ideas.


I cannot quite tell if you are being serious or not...
 
2012-12-10 05:40:19 AM  

Big Ramifications: Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?



Maybe gender bias is still prevalent in the education system.
 
2012-12-10 05:41:06 AM  

ghostwind: cherryl taggart: I was born missing a fully functional endocrine system, which was really noticed until puberty. I produce minimal amounts of testosterone and pretty much nothing else. Math in all its form was a struggle for me throughout school, but now I do math in my head. This makes me living proof that the introduction of synthetic female hormones creates mathematicians. Makes as much damn sense as this guys ideas.


I cannot quite tell if you are being serious or not...


Really?
 
2012-12-10 05:42:08 AM  

thamike: ghostwind: cherryl taggart:

Really?


Well, up until the last sentence..
 
2012-12-10 05:43:49 AM  

Porous Horace: Oh, so now science is "bad"?


No, but Pseudoscience like this is.
 
2012-12-10 05:48:11 AM  

Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?


Well, there do appear to be some differences in brain organization and structure between males and females. Hormones have been mentioned in scientific articles as a possible factor (I did a search on Google Scholar and found some papers in reputable journals, but I just had time to glance at the abstracts), so I guess the testosterone theory may be a bizarre misinterpretation of actual research. However it seems that many factors are involved, and I imagine that our cultural attitudes toward math and gender have some effect.
 
2012-12-10 05:55:21 AM  

Metalithic: Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?

Well, there do appear to be some differences in brain organization and structure between males and females. Hormones have been mentioned in scientific articles as a possible factor (I did a search on Google Scholar and found some papers in reputable journals, but I just had time to glance at the abstracts), so I guess the testosterone theory may be a bizarre misinterpretation of actual research. However it seems that many factors are involved, and I imagine that our cultural attitudes toward math and gender have some effect.


My guess is that the brain needs a certain amount of testosterone or estrogen (among other hormones) to operate at peak efficiency. How much it needs is probably not very much, more than is produced by anyone without a serious glandular condition. Then Captain Derpy here reads that bit about "the brain requires testosterone or estrogen", doesn't bother to check his units, and winds up publishing a book full of crap.
 
2012-12-10 05:58:42 AM  

yukichigai: Then Captain Derpy here reads that bit about "the brain requires testosterone or estrogen", doesn't bother to check his units, and winds up publishing a book full of crap.


Captain Derpy has published multiple books on the topic, and I am sure his bank account has benefited quite nicely as a result.
 
2012-12-10 05:59:07 AM  
This is BS by the way (Just about all the "testosterone giants" did with their "daily surges" was try and get as drunk as possible as often as possible.
 
2012-12-10 06:00:43 AM  

Smoking GNU: This is BS by the way (Just about all the "testosterone giants" did with their "daily surges" was try and get as drunk as possible as often as possible.


OK, i have no idea what went wrong here, but fark just ate 2/3 of my post right out from the middle.
 
2012-12-10 06:15:21 AM  

182: fusillade762: As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.

wow! just wow.


What? You have a problem with separate but equal classes?
 
2012-12-10 06:15:26 AM  
The ACLU has a problem with this

But why should the ACLU have all the fun, eh?


Rik01: The older I get, the more absolutely stupid humanity seems to become.


Humanity has been circling the drain more or less since it was invented... or at the very least, since the means to comment on it in public was invented. And I've remained unconvinced by such "unique insights" more or less since I was invented.

That said, Stupid (like every other trend or fashion) never really becomes forever passe. It just goes out of style for a while before being revived yet again at some opportune time.
 
2012-12-10 06:23:51 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-10 06:27:16 AM  

Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?


The difference begins at middle school. Either female students get dumber or we systematically give the advantage to male students. Considering many studies support the latter, I'm going with that.
 
2012-12-10 06:29:39 AM  

Mike_LowELL: TheHopeDiamond: How about we stop sending foreign aid to third-world developing countries and send it to farking Alabama?

How about you stop making fun of the best school system on the planet? Alabama was first place out of fifty states in getting the lowest science test scores. It's no wonder we kick your butts at football.


Not only that, but the toothbrush was invented in Alabama.
Anywhere else, and they'd have called it a "teethbrush".
 
2012-12-10 06:33:54 AM  

ghostwind: swingerofbirches: It doesn't make a lot of sense. If this program is so great, you might as well test kids for their testosterone levels so they're in the right group. Testosterone levels vary wildly between individuals. I'm an XY male with idiopathic secondary hypogonadism (basically a pituitary issue causes me to have low testosterone and they don't know why) and I have similar testosterone levels to an XX friend of mine who has PCOS. I went through two years of calculus in high school (I forget what they called it, AB, BC, soemthing like that), and did fine with testosterone levels that I assume were low back then as well.

But to throw all boys together and all girls together is a bit crude scientifically (if there really was any science to begin with).

I can also tell you the gay kids will suffer. It will be hell. The same way that they say there are less distractions, being with only the same gender becomes this torturous world where you observe what you like but can't do anything about while having to try to act like a normal person to not get found out. In short, gay guys need straight girls. Especially in Alabama.

I think something that many people overlook with these kinds of correlations is that elevated testosterone does not mean a whole lot at the end of the day... the brain only has a certain number testosterone receptors in the brain. Produce more than the receptors can handle, then nothing happens... At the end of the day, the author that wrote this book probably has a very limited understanding of the endocrine system and how it works in the body. What is even worse, is that the educators have even less of an understanding of it than he does...  The end result is an ACLU lawsuit against the school.


This is it in a nutshell.
 
2012-12-10 06:34:42 AM  
I don't know which is worse. Alabama, or the bastards in the comments section attacking the article writer.
 
2012-12-10 06:37:10 AM  

Old enough to know better: I don't know which is worse. Alabama, or the bastards in the comments section attacking the article writer.


There's a comment section?
Goddammitsomuch, now I'm going to be late for work.
 
2012-12-10 06:37:11 AM  

Bontesla: The difference begins at middle school.


Hey, learning is life-long.

By which I mean stereotypes about how you learn are reinforced from birth to death of course.
 
2012-12-10 06:38:24 AM  

Bontesla: Old enough to know better: I don't know which is worse. Alabama, or the bastards in the comments section attacking the article writer.

There's a comment section?
Goddammitsomuch, now I'm going to be late for work.


No comments on the mobile version.
 
2012-12-10 06:40:55 AM  

SkunkWerks: Bontesla: The difference begins at middle school.

Hey, learning is life-long.

By which I mean stereotypes about how you learn are reinforced from birth to death of course.


Absolutely.
There was an interesting study that looks at how teachers reinforce gender bias in the way they respond to students. This study was published in the 50s and has been recreated each time the phenomen was studied.
 
2012-12-10 06:49:53 AM  
Just a quick question (I think).

Why is everyone posting about Alabama? The article is from the Newspaper in Alabama, but I think they have pulled one over on FARK folks.

In the first sentence it states "Birmingham's Huffman Middle School and another district in Idaho"

I'm not sure, and I could be wrong, but this is all about Idaho, not Alabama. In the actual article it talks about Birmingham. Maybe they are speaking about Birmingham, England.
 
2012-12-10 06:54:41 AM  

BiffSpiffy: I'm not sure, and I could be wrong, but this is all about Idaho, not Alabama. In the actual article it talks about Birmingham. Maybe they are speaking about Birmingham, England.


Birmingham is a city in Alabama.
 
2012-12-10 06:55:44 AM  

BiffSpiffy: Maybe they are speaking about Birmingham, England.


No.

That said, Dayton, Tennesee is jealous they didn't think of it first.
 
2012-12-10 06:57:09 AM  

Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?


Maybe it has to do with the gender stereotyping illustrated in this article? "We think girls are bad at math, so let's just not teach it to them and let them bake cookies instead."

And it's not just schooling. This gender stereotyping is ingrained in pretty much every aspect of our lives, from our toys to our entertainment. You have building blocks, and "building blocks for girls", which are pink and come mostly pre-assembled. The toy aisles are segregated by gender, so kids don't even really get the opportunity to browse what the other gender is "supposed" to play with.

And before you say that toy companies are just catering to what the genders would naturally gravitate towards playing with, anyway, I offer you this: Soccer vs. Football. In pretty much every country besides the US, soccer is the dominant sport, whereas in the US, it's football. Is there some ingrained hormonal response unique to Americans that makes Americans naturally prefer football over soccer? No, it's completely cultural. If an American grew up in a European country, they'd probably like soccer instead. I propose that the intellectual interests of the genders probably operates in a similar manner.
 
2012-12-10 06:58:17 AM  

fusillade762: 182: fusillade762: As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.

wow! just wow.

What? You have a problem with separate but equal classes?


Nah, he just saw a modified wooden toilet paper roller.
 
2012-12-10 07:02:25 AM  

Fast Moon: Maybe it has to do with the gender stereotyping illustrated in this article? "We think girls are bad at math, so let's just not teach it to them and let them bake cookies instead."

And it's not just schooling.


Again, for an interesting example of this, read up on the Monty Hall Problem.

Basically put: Male Mathematicians vs. female Guinness Book's Highest IQ Score entry.

Sex discrimination in Academics hardly ends at graduation.
 
2012-12-10 07:03:16 AM  
Um...Idaho. Anyone else catch that?
 
2012-12-10 07:08:26 AM  

SkunkWerks: Fast Moon: Maybe it has to do with the gender stereotyping illustrated in this article? "We think girls are bad at math, so let's just not teach it to them and let them bake cookies instead."

And it's not just schooling.

Again, for an interesting example of this, read up on the Monty Hall Problem.

Basically put: Male Mathematicians vs. female Guinness Book's Highest IQ Score entry.

Sex discrimination in Academics hardly ends at graduation.


The "two boys" and Monty Hall problems almost annually appear in some format in the American Mathematics Competitions (AHSME when I was in high school), and the answer they use on it is 1/3.
 
2012-12-10 07:09:31 AM  

BiffSpiffy: Just a quick question (I think).

Why is everyone posting about Alabama? The article is from the Newspaper in Alabama, but I think they have pulled one over on FARK folks.

In the first sentence it states "Birmingham's Huffman Middle School and another district in Idaho"

I'm not sure, and I could be wrong, but this is all about Idaho, not Alabama. In the actual article it talks about Birmingham. Maybe they are speaking about Birmingham, England.


=====

Well they both have a lot in common.

/potato
 
2012-12-10 07:10:47 AM  
Sweet hormone, Alabama.
 
2012-12-10 07:16:03 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.


as I have told many others... Alabama law requires all residents to take a "clear thinking" pill each day which is in fact a stupid pill. I found evidence of this when I used to dispatch for Roto Rooter and one of the districts I took care of was Birmingham. The customers were as stupid as a box of rocks, and the Technicians were no better. Basic english and math is a problem for them. If they read what I am typing here, they quite literally would not understand it. It's sad and tragic really.
 
2012-12-10 07:16:17 AM  
Women who vote Republican:

This is the world the Republicans want for you and your daughters.
 
2012-12-10 07:16:30 AM  

KawaiiNot: Um...Idaho. Anyone else catch that?


If you're waiting for a "counting to potato" image meme, doing a google image search isn't all that difficult, you know.
 
2012-12-10 07:17:14 AM  
I take back my previous statement about the box of rocks... I don't want to insult them (the rocks).
 
2012-12-10 07:19:55 AM  
I couldn't get the help I needed in Math even though I asked for it. They told me that math is hard and because I'm a girl I'd be better off focusing on reading anyway. I could read just fine and would have preferred the help learning percentages. Why yes, I did grow up in the south. Though, to be fair, my problem with math goes way beyond what tutoring can fix, it borders on illiteracy.
 
2012-12-10 07:29:33 AM  
Hopefully they teach the girls to quit whining and put on a good damn coat.

/This thread needs more pictures of hot woman in the math and sciences.
 
2012-12-10 07:30:25 AM  

gadian: I couldn't get the help I needed in Math even though I asked for it. They told me that math is hard and because I'm a girl I'd be better off focusing on reading anyway. I could read just fine and would have preferred the help learning percentages. Why yes, I did grow up in the south. Though, to be fair, my problem with math goes way beyond what tutoring can fix, it borders on illiteracy.


Science tells us that Males tend to think more with the left hemisphere of the brain (The logical side, less emotion, etc), and the Female of our species tends to think more in the right hemisphere (The emotional side, less logic). If that is true, it does explain a great number of things about why men and women can never seem to understand how each is approaching a particular situation. It would also explain why women are more (as a general rule) attached more emotionally to a relationship than physically. Men have a tendency to be dogs because we are less attached emotionally than physically, and if we don't get what we want in a relationship at a physical level, then we move on. There is nothing that says that is written in stone however, some people do evolve to use both halves of their brains so there is balance, but the vast majority of the public think with one half of their brain. The logical side covers science, math, etc whereas the emotional side covers language, art, etc.

/Assuming science is correct in this matter
 
2012-12-10 07:33:15 AM  

orbister: Big Ramifications: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

That's an interesting question. When I was at university, maths was roughly 50:50 at undergraduate level and roughly 20:1 male to female at postgrad. Physics, on the other hand, had a much higher proportion of women postgrads than undergrads.


I completed a PhD dissertation in a physics discipline with a significant topology/matrix mechanics focus. I probably could have gone into a pure topology field because I love abstract math, topo in particular.

However, i tried to be practical....the job prospects for a purely math postgrad degree weren't great, and I wouldn't want to be an actuary if all else failed, so off to the applied sciences I went.

Anecdote =/= data but I suspect there is some selection towards applied mathematics for other female scientists. If we are launching ourselves towards a degree in STEM, it's good to know we can compete for real jobs.

Plus, the culture in math and the physical sciences is pretty funny. There is a huge component of nerdiness coupled with machismo...I often found it alienating, like the sweaty smell most of my classmates would infuse the classroom with. Lucky for me, I love science more than that.
 
2012-12-10 07:34:44 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: /Assuming science is correct in this matter


Yes and no. Science largely debunked the "left-half/right-half-dominant" theories nearly a century ago.

So it really depends on what century you're still living in with regards to science.
 
2012-12-10 07:37:15 AM  

SkunkWerks: HindiDiscoMonster: /Assuming science is correct in this matter

Yes and no. Science largely debunked the "left-half/right-half-dominant" theories nearly a century ago.

So it really depends on what century you're still living in with regards to science.


does steampunk count as an era?

/no i don't dress that way but my favorite game is based on it
 
2012-12-10 07:38:06 AM  
From Alabama, saw Birmingham, closed the article. Nothing from that shiatehole of a city surprises me.


/Birmingham = Detroit
 
2012-12-10 07:39:01 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: does steampunk count as an era?


www.thegameeffect.com
 
2012-12-10 07:41:45 AM  

Team Nemesis: From Alabama, saw Birmingham, closed the article. Nothing from that shiatehole of a city surprises me.


/Birmingham = Detroit


I've only been to the Childersburg (? Can't remember if that's correct) area of Birmingham. It was nice. The traffic was irritating. I can't fathom what the rest of Birmingham looks like but based off descriptions, I'm sure it's awful.
 
2012-12-10 07:45:33 AM  
I like that the comments section seems convinced that the ACLU is the federal government.

Alabama!
 
2012-12-10 07:45:54 AM  

SkunkWerks: HindiDiscoMonster: does steampunk count as an era?

[www.thegameeffect.com image 600x750]


that's cool... he could be a boss in a game... only problem is you can only kill him with a headshot.

/too soon?
 
2012-12-10 07:46:26 AM  
Last seen in girl's classes:

th04.deviantart.net

Last seen in boy's classes:

evridikidakos.edublogs.org

/Alabama needs it's own fark tag
 
2012-12-10 07:47:37 AM  

fusillade762: As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.


And what would you say if the separated them by race next?
 
2012-12-10 07:48:44 AM  
JTFC i thought the headline was a joke.
 
2012-12-10 07:50:30 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Plus, the culture in math and the physical sciences is pretty funny. There is a huge component of nerdiness coupled with machismo...I often found it alienating, like the sweaty smell most of my classmates would infuse the classroom with. Lucky for me, I love science more than that.


As they say ... how can you tell a Cambridge mathematician likes you? He looks at your feet when he's talking to you.
 
2012-12-10 07:50:49 AM  

Bontesla: Team Nemesis: From Alabama, saw Birmingham, closed the article. Nothing from that shiatehole of a city surprises me.


/Birmingham = Detroit

I've only been to the Childersburg (? Can't remember if that's correct) area of Birmingham. It was nice. The traffic was irritating. I can't fathom what the rest of Birmingham looks like but based off descriptions, I'm sure it's awful.



Just like any area outside of a big city is better. Now the countryside of Alabama is a lot better than what we call "major" cities. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever visit Montgomery, Birmingham, Mobile or Huntsville. I'm trying to get out, but working full time and going to college blows. Sometimes I think I'll never get out of this no teeth, backward ass, bible thumbing, anti science state. BAHhumbug.


/ooo breakfast is done YAY!
 
2012-12-10 07:52:08 AM  

Team Nemesis: Bontesla: Team Nemesis: From Alabama, saw Birmingham, closed the article. Nothing from that shiatehole of a city surprises me.


/Birmingham = Detroit

I've only been to the Childersburg (? Can't remember if that's correct) area of Birmingham. It was nice. The traffic was irritating. I can't fathom what the rest of Birmingham looks like but based off descriptions, I'm sure it's awful.


Just like any area outside of a big city is better. Now the countryside of Alabama is a lot better than what we call "major" cities. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever visit Montgomery, Birmingham, Mobile or Huntsville. I'm trying to get out, but working full time and going to college blows. Sometimes I think I'll never get out of this no teeth, backward ass, bible thumbing, anti science state. BAHhumbug.


/ooo breakfast is done YAY!


I'm planning on escaping the Bible Belt next fall.
 
2012-12-10 07:56:02 AM  
It's Al Obama's fault!
 
2012-12-10 07:56:16 AM  
I don't usually read the comments directly on the article in question due to the extreme derpism that is almost always present, but I did it this time, and boy did it bring back memories... that level of stupidity can only be had through chemical means... nothing else makes sense.
 
2012-12-10 07:56:31 AM  
I like how subby took out the words "at math" to make it seem worse than it is. Everybody knows boys are better at math
 
2012-12-10 07:58:36 AM  
The last wonder in the world surely has to be why women are still voting GOP?
 
2012-12-10 07:59:27 AM  

Gwyrddu: Hopefully they teach the girls to quit whining and put on a good damn coat.

/This thread needs more pictures of hot woman in the math and sciences.


Here's one:

2.bp.blogspot.com

/hot in more ways than one
 
2012-12-10 07:59:50 AM  
Would anyone mind posting comments? It's not available on mobile.
 
2012-12-10 08:01:33 AM  
So, girls are to boys as half-demons are to full blooded demons in inuyasha?
 
2012-12-10 08:08:28 AM  

Metalithic: Big Ramifications: Somacandra: FTFA: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

Downloaded and read the PDF complaint. Seems to center around this book:

[i.imgur.com image 350x523] 

Does a lot of "gender science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean, except it heavily priveldges nature over nurt
~
~
So why ARE boys better at math? My reference is a similar-sounding book called Brain Sex.
[i50.tinypic.com image 121x187]

IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

b-b-but sexism at universities!

b-b-but child rearing duties!

b-b-but male hegemony!

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?


Well, in his defense, he's not very good at math.
 
2012-12-10 08:10:30 AM  
My female child who is kicking ass in her math and science classes frowns upon these shenanigans.

gadian: I couldn't get the help I needed in Math chemistry even though I asked for it. They told me that chem is hard and because I'm a girl I'd be better off focusing on reading anyway. I could read just fine and would have preferred the help learning chemistry.


And yeah, that, fixed up for my own needs. Except for the growing up in the South thing. I grew up in the top education state in the country and still felt this way.

I was also told, "It doesn't really matter what you pick for a career, because you'll only be doing it until you have kids anyway." This was in the 80s, not the 50s.
 
2012-12-10 08:10:37 AM  

Lanadapter: So, girls are to boys as half-demons are to full blooded demons in inuyasha?


what language is this?
 
2012-12-10 08:11:40 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: I've always thought Birmingham was the most segregated city I've ever been too and well this is just proving me right in a different way.
/sad


St. Louis, Detroit, and Milwaukee would like a word with you. But even Milwaukee wouldn't even come up with something this stupid.
 
2012-12-10 08:12:26 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Lanadapter: So, girls are to boys as half-demons are to full blooded demons in inuyasha?

what language is this?


Weeaboo
 
2012-12-10 08:12:30 AM  

GAT_00: Having separate sex education classes by gender really doesn't sound like a problem. I'm pretty sure mine were. But then you get the section Subby quoted:

According to the complaint filed by the ACLU, instructions for teaching boys call for stressing heroic behavior that shows what it means to "be a man." According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

and I'm all with the ACLU here. What a crock of shiat.


Yeah, there are arguments to be made for gender segregation in some instances. This is NOT the way to make that argument.
 
2012-12-10 08:13:08 AM  
Is this a black school? I read earlier about a school in Chicago that did this and was highly controversial. It was an all boys school and had all of that "be a man" stuff throughout the day. Thing was by the numbers the students had a 100% turn around. These were students who were the lowest of the low, in grades, behavior, criminality, etc. But the students really turned around and it had one of the highest college acceptance if chicago schools.

Personally i wouldnt want this but the average person seems to respond positively to this type of mentorship.
 
2012-12-10 08:14:02 AM  

serial_crusher: Everybody knows boys

are better at math

We do?

'Cause I was fairly certain most of the discussion in this thread regarded some healthy skepticism as to whether or not this particular bit of "common knowledge" is the least bit grounded in reality...
 
2012-12-10 08:14:48 AM  

pxlboy: HindiDiscoMonster: Lanadapter: So, girls are to boys as half-demons are to full blooded demons in inuyasha?

what language is this?

Weeaboo


aaaah thank you... that is a term i must remember.

/hates Anime with the heat of 1000 hells... maybe more.
 
2012-12-10 08:15:02 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com

Applies to anything, really (driving, sports, games, etc). Society tends to judge men's failures on an individual basis, but tends to judge an individual woman's failure as indicative of her entire gender (and an individual woman's success as an outlier).
 
2012-12-10 08:16:57 AM  

ggecko: And what would you say if the separated them by race next?


i775.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-10 08:17:17 AM  

nekom: GAT_00: Having separate sex education classes by gender really doesn't sound like a problem. I'm pretty sure mine were. But then you get the section Subby quoted:

According to the complaint filed by the ACLU, instructions for teaching boys call for stressing heroic behavior that shows what it means to "be a man." According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

and I'm all with the ACLU here. What a crock of shiat.

Yeah, there are arguments to be made for gender segregation in some instances. This is NOT the way to make that argument.


The correct testosterone argument: Due to a flood of superfluous testosterone, boys find it har... er... more difficult to concentrate on their academic subjects when there are female students in yoga pants answering the problems on the board.

I could work with this.
 
2012-12-10 08:17:50 AM  
So.... after all the warbling..... is the program effective? Are the students doing better academically now then they were before the program was introduced?
 
2012-12-10 08:18:11 AM  

ggecko: fusillade762: As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.

And what would you say if the separated them by race next?


READY

SET

GO!
 
2012-12-10 08:18:39 AM  

o'really:

I hope a better news outlet picks up this story and expands on it, npr maybe. I'd like to hear from some of the parents and/or the students.


To hear from the parents, check out the comments. They're downright scary
 
2012-12-10 08:21:08 AM  

cmb53208: . They're downright scary


Or down's, right?
 
2012-12-10 08:21:21 AM  

ghostwind: yukichigai: Then Captain Derpy here reads that bit about "the brain requires testosterone or estrogen", doesn't bother to check his units, and winds up publishing a book full of crap.

Captain Derpy has published multiple books on the topic, and I am sure his bank account has benefited quite nicely as a result.


Well, selling derp to the ignorant masses always has and always will be a successful business strategy.
 
2012-12-10 08:21:50 AM  
"We understand that teachers and parents want to provide the best education for their children. But coeducation was never the problem with failing schools, and single-sex programs are not the answer," said Christina Brandt-Young The Woman, attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "
 
2012-12-10 08:22:29 AM  
Louisiana did this in the 1970's after forced integration. They wanted to keep the black guys away from the white girls. It ended just after I graduated in 1976. No girls in High School for me. Shiat.
 
2012-12-10 08:22:34 AM  

ChuDogg: Is this a black school? I read earlier about a school in Chicago that did this and was highly controversial. It was an all boys school and had all of that "be a man" stuff throughout the day. Thing was by the numbers the students had a 100% turn around. These were students who were the lowest of the low, in grades, behavior, criminality, etc. But the students really turned around and it had one of the highest college acceptance if chicago schools.

Personally i wouldnt want this but the average person seems to respond positively to this type of mentorship.


That would be Urban Prep Academies. For the last three years they have had 100% of the graduating senior class go off to four-year colleges or universities. I'm really surprised no one has looked to see if the Alabama program is actually working, it's the first question I would have asked.
 
2012-12-10 08:24:04 AM  
Hey, baby -- this math ain't gonna do itself.
 
2012-12-10 08:26:53 AM  

Fast Moon: [imgs.xkcd.com image 410x211]

Applies to anything, really (driving, sports, games, etc). Society tends to judge men's failures on an individual basis, but tends to judge an individual woman's failure as indicative of her entire gender (and an individual woman's success as an outlier).


I don't think that goes for everything. Baking for example, would probably go the other way. There's some amount of circular logic that started thousands of years ago when people were regularly engaged in survival tasks where those genetic differences helped, then it just kind of snowballed from there.
 
2012-12-10 08:27:07 AM  
So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?
 
2012-12-10 08:27:35 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: ChuDogg: Is this a black school? I read earlier about a school in Chicago that did this and was highly controversial. It was an all boys school and had all of that "be a man" stuff throughout the day. Thing was by the numbers the students had a 100% turn around. These were students who were the lowest of the low, in grades, behavior, criminality, etc. But the students really turned around and it had one of the highest college acceptance if chicago schools.

Personally i wouldnt want this but the average person seems to respond positively to this type of mentorship.

That would be Urban Prep Academies. For the last three years they have had 100% of the graduating senior class go off to four-year colleges or universities. I'm really surprised no one has looked to see if the Alabama program is actually working, it's the first question I would have asked.


The primary problem with the argument FOR segregation of the sexes is the argument the school is using - that people learn differently if they are a different gender. If the argument was to keep distractions (ie; hormone laden teenagers away from each other) the argument would have more merit, but it would still be wrong and here is why: People of different sexes must learn to work together in a society of different sexes... it's part of the learning process.

/IMHO
 
2012-12-10 08:27:46 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: I'm really surprised no one has looked to see if the Alabama program is actually working, it's the first question I would have asked.


You did.

Would "why is it actually working?" be the second (assuming the first answer was an affirmative)?

'Cause that would by my second, particularly in a largely forgotten and abandoned school district where any sort of attention to the program is likely to improve scores.
 
2012-12-10 08:28:09 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: So.... after all the warbling..... is the program effective? Are the students doing better academically now then they were before the program was introduced?


Silly, nobody cares about results, it's all about fairness.
 
2012-12-10 08:29:38 AM  

MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?


the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.
 
2012-12-10 08:30:10 AM  

MycroftHolmes: but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively?


It's valid when your observation focuses on "wiring differences" that don't pertain to "having breasts", "missing penises" and "capacity to make sandwiches", yes.
 
2012-12-10 08:30:47 AM  

serial_crusher: Fast Moon: [imgs.xkcd.com image 410x211]

Applies to anything, really (driving, sports, games, etc). Society tends to judge men's failures on an individual basis, but tends to judge an individual woman's failure as indicative of her entire gender (and an individual woman's success as an outlier).

I don't think that goes for everything. Baking for example, would probably go the other way. There's some amount of circular logic that started thousands of years ago when people were regularly engaged in survival tasks where those genetic differences helped, then it just kind of snowballed from there.


speaking of baking... i happen to excel at it while my wife does not.
 
2012-12-10 08:31:01 AM  

Somacandra: FTFA: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

Downloaded and read the PDF complaint. Seems to center around this book:

[i.imgur.com image 350x523] 

Does a lot of "gender science." Not sure what that is supposed to mean, except it heavily priveldges nature over nurt



Authors:
Michael Gurian
with Kathy Stevens
 
2012-12-10 08:34:13 AM  
Farking General Sherman and his half measures.

Seriously, if we don't figure out how to fix the Southern Problem soon, it will be the death of this country.
 
2012-12-10 08:35:54 AM  

orbister: Big Ramifications: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

That's an interesting question. When I was at university, maths was roughly 50:50 at undergraduate level and roughly 20:1 male to female at postgrad. Physics, on the other hand, had a much higher proportion of women postgrads than undergrads.


This known as the "norway paradox". As societies become more liberal, gender norms become even more pronounced in things like education. Norway prides itself on being one of the more feminist minded countries and starts it education process from a very young age. Yet the rate of female norwegians going into maths and sciences is one the lowest in the world, even lower than places like saudi arabia and pakistan. The reason being conservative structures "force the outcome", as well as sone liberal societs like the US and britain where they use quotas to force a certain amount of female grads. But left to their own devices, men and women tend to naturally choose paths that reflect their gemder stereotype. Theres a norwegian documentary about it ill try to find it sometime today.

Interestingly enough your school is probably running into some problems with that, as Title IX fundig requirements were extended to STEM. Schools that dont have a 50-50 ratio are at risk of losing funding, meaning many schools need to drastically curtail their programs as they cannot accept more boys that apply.
 
2012-12-10 08:38:07 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.


So, your belief is that the brains, as well as the abilities to learn and the methods of learning and observation, are identical between males and females at birth? There are no physiological or neurological differences that can impact learning styles?
 
2012-12-10 08:38:22 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: pxlboy: HindiDiscoMonster: Lanadapter: So, girls are to boys as half-demons are to full blooded demons in inuyasha?

what language is this?

Weeaboo

aaaah thank you... that is a term i must remember.

/hates Anime with the heat of 1000 hells... maybe more.


I don't go that far. I took Japanese in high school (and later on in college) because it was being offered and offered a challenge.
 
2012-12-10 08:39:22 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.


Alabama is big but not that big.

The article point you referenced is supposedly about Middleton Heights Elementary in Idaho. You're excused from criticism however. The article really sucks and apparently a lot of the stuff in it is total bullshiat.

Try this article for a different view.
 
2012-12-10 08:39:27 AM  

ChuDogg: But left to their own devices, men and women tend to naturally choose paths that reflect their gemder stereotype.


I don't really know that this is a paradox, so much as it is evidence of how hard it is to combat stereotypes (of the sort generally put in place, maintained and enforced by conservative social movements) once they're firmly-rooted in a culture.

It's only a "paradox" if you assume that less than a century is enough to completely expunge all previously-held preconceptions.

It isn't.
 
2012-12-10 08:40:09 AM  

SkunkWerks: MycroftHolmes: but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively?

It's valid when your observation focuses on "wiring differences" that don't pertain to "having breasts", "missing penises" and "capacity to make sandwiches", yes.


So, while segregating classes and creating gender biased curriculum may be too far, dismissing the underlying concepts that the Alabama program is based on out of hand is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, yes?
 
2012-12-10 08:40:11 AM  
And I shouldn't post this early in the morning.
 
2012-12-10 08:40:56 AM  

SkunkWerks: It isn't.


Also? Jem is excitement.

www.slycomics.com
 
2012-12-10 08:42:10 AM  

MycroftHolmes: throwing the baby out with the bathwater, yes


Some people think Josef Mengele still has a point, yes.
 
2012-12-10 08:42:40 AM  
From the school principal's page....

My name is Mr. Hopkins, and I am the very proud principal of the best middle school in the United States.......

Really? That takes some brass.
 
2012-12-10 08:44:44 AM  
I would love to see what they're teaching in science class. I bet at least one of their textbooks has a picture of Jesus riding a velociraptor.
 
2012-12-10 08:46:33 AM  

MycroftHolmes: HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.

So, your belief is that the brains, as well as the abilities to learn and the methods of learning and observation, are identical between males and females at birth? There are no physiological or neurological differences that can impact learning styles?


Do you believe testosterone makes people better at math?
 
2012-12-10 08:46:44 AM  

bigworld: From the school principal's page....

My name is Mr. Hopkins, and I am the very proud principal of the best middle school in the United States.......

Really? That takes some brass.


Ehn, it's like when you buy your dad a "world's best dad" mug, or when Batman calls himself the world's greatest detective. Nobody actually believes it, even the person saying it.
 
2012-12-10 08:47:01 AM  

SkunkWerks: MycroftHolmes: throwing the baby out with the bathwater, yes

Some people think Josef Mengele still has a point, yes.


So, you think that No Child Left Behind and mainstreanming of special needs students is the way to go?
 
2012-12-10 08:51:05 AM  

MycroftHolmes: So, you think that No Child Left Behind and mainstreanming of special needs students is the way to go?


As a one-time special needs student myself? No.

Then again, Mengele would have disposed of me, or used me in experiments since that was clearly the only useful purpose I could serve in any "civilized" society.
 
2012-12-10 08:52:20 AM  

SkunkWerks: MycroftHolmes: but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively?

It's valid when your observation focuses on "wiring differences" that don't pertain to "having breasts", "missing penises" and "capacity to make sandwiches", yes.


You know, as much sandwich-making is frequently delegated to women, it is clearly an area that men excel at when dire circumstances force us to take matters into our own hands. Observe, sandwiches made by men:
bitesofbliss.files.wordpress.com
Sandwiches made by women:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-10 08:52:41 AM  
Alabama is closing fast with Florida as the dumbest state in the union.
 
2012-12-10 08:56:51 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.


Maybe the administrator is a Feeder.
 
2012-12-10 08:56:58 AM  
They actually did a study in my high school (public) by making an all boys and an all girls physics class. The girls had better attendance and homework completion rates, the boys did better on tests. Not sure what the experiment showed, but anecdotally I can say that the all boys class was the rowdiest class I've ever been in.
 
2012-12-10 08:57:34 AM  
The psychometricians tell us that males and females have the same mean iq, but males have a wider variance. The slight joke there is the means for males and females are forced to be equal.

Standard deviation is fixed for the whole species, though, so if true and a semi-arbitrary cutoff is 2 standard deviations above the mean (lets say 120), there would be more males above that mark than females, unless scores are also standardized within genders. It is an often repeated "fact", made difficult to test due to the absence of culture-neutral intelligene tests.

This also means more male r-tards than female r-tards, if true. Hooray!

/Still not sure I buy it
//see: Halpern DF. Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education.. The American psychologist. 1997;52:1091-1102.
 
2012-12-10 08:58:34 AM  
don't you get it bart. HAR DEE HAR HAR!!!

homepage.smc.edu
 
2012-12-10 08:59:44 AM  

MycroftHolmes: the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.

So, your belief is that the brains, as well as the abilities to learn and the methods of learning and observation, are identical between males and females at birth? There are no physiological or neurological differences that can impact learning styles?


Male and female human brains do have similar development paths from birth, but they are by no means the same... They are influenced by a variety of factors, such as horomones. Female and male brains are also different anatomically in size and surface areas. Male brains tend to be larger than female brains, but female brains tend to have more folds in the outer cortex of the brain, meaning they have a greater surface area than the male brain.
 
2012-12-10 09:00:31 AM  

pxlboy: HindiDiscoMonster: pxlboy: HindiDiscoMonster: Lanadapter: So, girls are to boys as half-demons are to full blooded demons in inuyasha?

what language is this?

Weeaboo

aaaah thank you... that is a term i must remember.

/hates Anime with the heat of 1000 hells... maybe more.

I don't go that far. I took Japanese in high school (and later on in college) because it was being offered and offered a challenge.


I like Japanese (the language) and the culture of efficiency... I do not like Anime.
 
2012-12-10 09:01:22 AM  

This Face Left Blank: I was gonna try to say something smart or funny, but screw it. Fark everyone involved with making this happen. THIS is states rights in action, folks, and boy howdy, ain't they some clever sumbiatches? 

Idiots! Goddamn idiots are in charge! What the actual fark is wrong with us?


People like people like themselves and vote accordingly.
 
2012-12-10 09:02:27 AM  

MycroftHolmes: HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.

So, your belief is that the brains, as well as the abilities to learn and the methods of learning and observation, are identical between males and females at birth? There are no physiological or neurological differences that can impact learning styles?


yup... nothing that effects learning "styles" from a physiological or neurological standpoint. If I am wrong, then please cite a reliable reference.
 
2012-12-10 09:02:56 AM  
More women in the NFL!
 
2012-12-10 09:03:07 AM  
And on the few days per month girls are good at math, they have to keep on guard about attracting bears.
 
2012-12-10 09:04:55 AM  

SkunkWerks: MycroftHolmes: So, you think that No Child Left Behind and mainstreanming of special needs students is the way to go?

As a one-time special needs student myself? No.

Then again, Mengele would have disposed of me, or used me in experiments since that was clearly the only useful purpose I could serve in any "civilized" society.


That is all well and good. Personally, I believe that there is some constructive distance between 'acknowledging that different individuals have different needs' and 'dispose of anyone different'. Creating a false equivalency implying that anyone who wants to adapt programs for individuals must go all the way to the point of eliminating those individuals is a bit much.
 
2012-12-10 09:07:56 AM  
I get it. Alabama is full of Muslims.
 
2012-12-10 09:08:31 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: And on the few days per month girls are good at math, they have to keep on guard about attracting bears.


sale.images.woot.com
 
2012-12-10 09:09:38 AM  
Nice story on the Ada Lovelace's birthday, you know the woman who foresaw many of the uses for computers over a century before any of them were possible. That and the whole being the first programmer thing.
 
2012-12-10 09:10:52 AM  

MycroftHolmes: I believe that there is some constructive distance between 'acknowledging that different individuals have different needs'


There's also some constructive difference between "different individuals having different needs" and "different genders having different needs".

MycroftHolmes: Creating a false equivalency


entire gender (full of individuals) = individual
 
2012-12-10 09:11:32 AM  

MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?


It's not valid to claim scientific, measurable phenomena as "patently obvious" when you haven't provided any support for such. For example, if we placed a brain from a corpse on a table, could you tell at a look whether it came from a male or female corpse? No. In fact, is there any test you could use other than a DNA test that would tell you if it came from a male or female corpse? Nope.

And furthermore, are there statistical cognitive differences between adult men and women on average, when a population is considered as a whole? Yes. This doesn't mean that you can make any claims about an individual, since the plots overlap significantly:
static.thesocietypages.org
It also doesn't mean that those differences are "fundamental" and due to "different wiring", since you haven't eliminated environmental and social factors.

In short, your "science" is non-existent and all of your claims are based on tenuous statistical connections made in reverse from a conclusion you already held, without evidence.
 
2012-12-10 09:12:24 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: yup... nothing that effects learning "styles" from a physiological or neurological standpoint. If I am wrong, then please cite a reliable reference.


What about Gender Identity Disorder? Evidence for that is typically brain morphology/chemistry.

If it isn't a perfectly blank slate, then it is reasonable to ask if meaningful sex differences in the brain exist.

/Ask, not declare.
 
2012-12-10 09:12:52 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Nice story on the Ada Lovelace's birthday, you know the woman who foresaw many of the uses for computers over a century before any of them were possible. That and the whole being the first programmer thing.


i thought the first programmer was C. Roger Morrison
 
2012-12-10 09:13:08 AM  

Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

It's not valid to claim scientific, measurable phenomena as "patently obvious" when you haven't provided any support for such. For example, if we placed a brain from a corpse on a table, could you tell at a look whether it came from a male or female corpse? No. In fact, is there any test you could use other than a DNA test that would tell you if it came from a male or female corpse? Nope.

And furthermore, are there statistical cognitive differences between adult men and women on average, when a population is considered as a whole? Yes. This doesn't mean that you can make any claims about an individual, since the plots overlap significantly:
[static.thesocietypages.org image 286x302]
It also doesn't mean that those differences are "fundamental" and due to "different wiring", since you haven't eliminated environmental and social factors.

In short, your "science" is non-existent and all of your claims are based on tenuous statistical connections made in reverse from a conclusion you already held, without evidence.


that is far nicer than I would have been... bravo!
 
2012-12-10 09:13:32 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: MycroftHolmes: HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.

So, your belief is that the brains, as well as the abilities to learn and the methods of learning and observation, are identical between males and females at birth? There are no physiological or neurological differences that can impact learning styles?

Do you believe testosterone makes people better at math?


I have no opinion on that, having not really researched the matter. I can say with confidence that testosterone has a significant affect on growth, so it is not beyond the pale to believe that the presence of growth hormones can improve mental growth as well as physical.

A 30 second GIS yielded the following articles that suggest a link between testosterone and greater learning capabilities (although some of this is more relevant to people with testosterone deficiencies)

Link
Link
Link
 
2012-12-10 09:14:06 AM  

Kittypie070: [kitten jumps up carefully into Rik01's lap, purrs nicely]


What the fark was that? This isn't a hook-up site!


/or should it be?
 
2012-12-10 09:14:12 AM  

Theaetetus: In short, your "science" is non-existent and all of your claims are based on tenuous statistical connections made in reverse from a conclusion you already held, without evidence.


How is that much different than assuming there must be no difference and working towards that conclusion?
 
2012-12-10 09:15:09 AM  

ph0rk: HindiDiscoMonster: yup... nothing that effects learning "styles" from a physiological or neurological standpoint. If I am wrong, then please cite a reliable reference.

What about Gender Identity Disorder? Evidence for that is typically brain morphology/chemistry.

If it isn't a perfectly blank slate, then it is reasonable to ask if meaningful sex differences in the brain exist.

/Ask, not declare.


we can ask anything we like... when deformations occur, of course there will be differences... we are only speaking to the average brain (non morphed/non mutated). anything that alters that average has to be accounted for on an individual basis.
 
2012-12-10 09:17:02 AM  

lyanna96: Kittypie070: [kitten jumps up carefully into Rik01's lap, purrs nicely]

What the fark was that? This isn't a hook-up site!


/or should it be?


wait... it isn't? shiat.
 
2012-12-10 09:19:20 AM  

Rik01:
Whoever is responsible for reinstating a segregational system that was forcibly ended by law at the end of the 18th century needs to have his or her collective arses kicked and loose their positions of power and influence.

Humanity never fails to disappoint me.

 

Tea partiers and such live in a different world from the rest of us, their world revolves around the like of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and their like minded friends in local AM radio and pulpits all over the USA. And somebody is paying Limbaugh et al for their efforts... it's not too hard to guess who but the machine is well financed and has been running for decades.

Resentment is the most powerful force in politics, well, after hatred but we're not there yet... yet.

Faz
 
2012-12-10 09:19:30 AM  

Snapper Carr: Snapper Carr: Was this book the article talks about written in the 40's?

Answered my own question - it was published in 2000


Heh. Sometimes I think we slipped a digit in the date...it's not 2012, it's 1012.

People think torture's a good way to get information, the Bible is literally true, the end days are on us, etc, etc...
 
2012-12-10 09:19:34 AM  

Theaetetus: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

It's not valid to claim scientific, measurable phenomena as "patently obvious" when you haven't provided any support for such. For example, if we placed a brain from a corpse on a table, could you tell at a look whether it came from a male or female corpse? No. In fact, is there any test you could use other than a DNA test that would tell you if it came from a male or female corpse? Nope.

And furthermore, are there statistical cognitive differences between adult men and women on average, when a population is considered as a whole? Yes. This doesn't mean that you can make any claims about an individual, since the plots overlap significantly:
[static.thesocietypages.org image 286x302]
It also doesn't mean that those differences are "fundamental" and due to "different wiring", since you haven't eliminated environmental and social factors.

In short, your "science" is non-existent and all of your claims are based on tenuous statistical connections made in reverse from a conclusion you already held, without evidence.


Actually, this is the type of conversation I was trying to provoke. The knee jerk reaction is too often that we must be politically correct and any acknowledgement of differences must be overlooked. Looking at the differences critically and determining if we are looking at something substantive is much more constructive than 'Stupid rednecks doing stupid segregation'. I am not actually advocating that girls and boys be taught differently(I think most elementary ed teachers can compensate for any differences in learning styles between genders and individuals), I just think it can be dangerous to assume that they can and will learn the same, without considering the possibility that this model is not working.
 
2012-12-10 09:20:13 AM  

ChuDogg: orbister: Big Ramifications: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

That's an interesting question. When I was at university, maths was roughly 50:50 at undergraduate level and roughly 20:1 male to female at postgrad. Physics, on the other hand, had a much higher proportion of women postgrads than undergrads.

This known as the "norway paradox". As societies become more liberal, gender norms become even more pronounced in things like education. Norway prides itself on being one of the more feminist minded countries and starts it education process from a very young age. Yet the rate of female norwegians going into maths and sciences is one the lowest in the world, even lower than places like saudi arabia and pakistan. The reason being conservative structures "force the outcome", as well as sone liberal societs like the US and britain where they use quotas to force a certain amount of female grads. But left to their own devices, men and women tend to naturally choose paths that reflect their gemder stereotype. Theres a norwegian documentary about it ill try to find it sometime today.


I'm not sure it's really a paradox. Here's the statistics on employment and education in Norway over the past 25 years. Taking as a reasonable assumption (but feel free to argue it) that graduate level professors tend to be (a) older than their students and (b) have significant amounts of higher education, it should be evident that, due to the relatively few numbers of women in higher education twenty years ago, there would be correspondingly few numbers of women teaching in higher education now. Given few women teaching in the profession, it would appear to be less appealing for younger women seeking entry.

However, given the rise of women in education as shown by that chart, I would suspect that the "paradox" is really just time-based hysteresis and will go away in a decade or two.
 
2012-12-10 09:20:23 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: ph0rk: HindiDiscoMonster: yup... nothing that effects learning "styles" from a physiological or neurological standpoint. If I am wrong, then please cite a reliable reference.

What about Gender Identity Disorder? Evidence for that is typically brain morphology/chemistry.

If it isn't a perfectly blank slate, then it is reasonable to ask if meaningful sex differences in the brain exist.

/Ask, not declare.

we can ask anything we like... when deformations occur, of course there will be differences... we are only speaking to the average brain (non morphed/non mutated). anything that alters that average has to be accounted for on an individual basis.


Why? For political reasons? (well, obviously, and rights are a separate discussion, or should be).

However, to assume that just because all we have evidence for is between-group differences that *any* two individuals are as likely to be identical as they are to be counter to what the group-level data suggests is wrong.

Group a has a mean of 1.1, sd of .1
Group b has a mean of 1.0, sd of .1


If you were a betting person you'd wager the individual from group a has a higher score than an individual from group b (absent individual evidence) because that is the safer bet. Is it certain? No. Nothing is, not even DNA testing.

Your argument is essentially the same one Herrnstein and Murray used to make everything "okay" in the Bell Curve. They were lying through their teeth and knew it, and so did most of their readers.
 
2012-12-10 09:21:55 AM  

ph0rk: The psychometricians tell us that males and females have the same mean iq, but males have a wider variance. The slight joke there is the means for males and females are forced to be equal.

Standard deviation is fixed for the whole species, though, so if true and a semi-arbitrary cutoff is 2 standard deviations above the mean (lets say 120), there would be more males above that mark than females, unless scores are also standardized within genders. It is an often repeated "fact", made difficult to test due to the absence of culture-neutral intelligene tests.


I wouldn't say that there are no culture neutral IQ tests out there... One test that has been seen as culture neutral is the Raven's Matrices, since it is a non-verbal test of g. The problem with tests like the WAIS, is that they rely on cultural specific references in some of the questions that are being asked. If you do not know the references enough times, this can skew results for some of the measures that are being taken in the test.
 
2012-12-10 09:23:19 AM  

simplicimus: Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.

That argument is bizarre. I went through 12 years of Catholic, the first eight years mixed gender, the last four segregated. The rationale? Mixed gender would be too distracting for high schoolers (which has a certain validity). But not because boys were smarter.


according to science, most everything you're taught around the puberty stage is largely wasted anyways, so segregating students and not really getting into real work until kids are teenagers is probably the smartest thing you can do
 
2012-12-10 09:23:51 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: WhyteRaven74: Nice story on the Ada Lovelace's birthday, you know the woman who foresaw many of the uses for computers over a century before any of them were possible. That and the whole being the first programmer thing.

i thought the first programmer was C. Roger Morrison


Alan Turing was gay, and that's pretty much the same thing as being a woman, right?
 
2012-12-10 09:24:39 AM  
So has anyone mentioned that women would be better at math and science like they appear to be during adolescence and through puberty, but by the end of puberty girls figured out that the hot successful guys won't sleep with girls they are intimidated intellectually by?
 
2012-12-10 09:24:59 AM  
*edit: should've said: so segregating students after that stage

all indications are - for a happy healthy normal adult, let the kids be kids before they hit puberty
 
TWX
2012-12-10 09:25:05 AM  
The sad thing is that there can be real behavioral reasons to separate boys and girls, especially in ages during junior high school, where attention seeking becomes a problem. There's a LOT of behavioral disruptions in classrooms during these years that simply wouldn't happen if boys and girls did not have class together, as a statistically relevant number of kids of each gender are showing off solely for those of the other gender.

Splitting boys and girls up in those years while using curriculum content suitable for both would make sense to me.
 
2012-12-10 09:25:05 AM  

ph0rk: Theaetetus: In short, your "science" is non-existent and all of your claims are based on tenuous statistical connections made in reverse from a conclusion you already held, without evidence.

How is that much different than assuming there must be no difference and working towards that conclusion?


Not at all. Both are pretty poor, and in a discussion of "ability in science", ironic. It's far better to (i) measure some difference, (ii) hypothesize about why there's a measured difference, and (iii) come up with a way to measure your hypothesized variable. Rinse, repeat. Simply saying "there are no differences*" or "there are differences and they're innate" is just pounding the table.

*and no one actually says that. It's a straw feminist argument. The debate is not over whether differences exist, but the cause for those differences - nature vs. nurture, and in what proportion.
 
2012-12-10 09:25:20 AM  

ghostwind: Raven's Matrices


ghostwind: ph0rk: The psychometricians tell us that males and females have the same mean iq, but males have a wider variance. The slight joke there is the means for males and females are forced to be equal.

Standard deviation is fixed for the whole species, though, so if true and a semi-arbitrary cutoff is 2 standard deviations above the mean (lets say 120), there would be more males above that mark than females, unless scores are also standardized within genders. It is an often repeated "fact", made difficult to test due to the absence of culture-neutral intelligene tests.


I wouldn't say that there are no culture neutral IQ tests out there... One test that has been seen as culture neutral is the Raven's Matrices, since it is a non-verbal test of g. The problem with tests like the WAIS, is that they rely on cultural specific references in some of the questions that are being asked. If you do not know the references enough times, this can skew results for some of the measures that are being taken in the test.


I'm a bigger fan of Cattel, Horn and Carroll's fluid/crystal intelligence than Spearman's g - and it makes a bit more explicit how hard it is to get at (test for) fluid intelligence.

Also I bet anyone who spent a lot of time with a NES got a training bonus on Raven's.

Of course, something like Raven's is miles ahead of the crap I'm often stuck with (Peabody PVT, I'm looking at your biased, low reliability ass).
 
2012-12-10 09:25:26 AM  

ph0rk: HindiDiscoMonster: ph0rk: HindiDiscoMonster: yup... nothing that effects learning "styles" from a physiological or neurological standpoint. If I am wrong, then please cite a reliable reference.

What about Gender Identity Disorder? Evidence for that is typically brain morphology/chemistry.

If it isn't a perfectly blank slate, then it is reasonable to ask if meaningful sex differences in the brain exist.

/Ask, not declare.

we can ask anything we like... when deformations occur, of course there will be differences... we are only speaking to the average brain (non morphed/non mutated). anything that alters that average has to be accounted for on an individual basis.

Why? For political reasons? (well, obviously, and rights are a separate discussion, or should be).

However, to assume that just because all we have evidence for is between-group differences that *any* two individuals are as likely to be identical as they are to be counter to what the group-level data suggests is wrong.

Group a has a mean of 1.1, sd of .1
Group b has a mean of 1.0, sd of .1


If you were a betting person you'd wager the individual from group a has a higher score than an individual from group b (absent individual evidence) because that is the safer bet. Is it certain? No. Nothing is, not even DNA testing.

Your argument is essentially the same one Herrnstein and Murray used to make everything "okay" in the Bell Curve. They were lying through their teeth and knew it, and so did most of their readers.


1> I don't bet
2> I don't look at a subset of data to make a decision, I take all available data
3> If all available data is later revised to include new data, then decisions are changed

have no idea who they are.
 
2012-12-10 09:26:00 AM  

octopied: Both my brother and his wife are engineers, so I'm getting a kick....


My sister worked her way up from an entry-level, grunt engineer to VP of engineering at a large and well known company over the course of 20 years. Oh, she also raised a passel of kids in that time. One of her daughters is studying chemical engineering now.

...so I'm kicking myself for letting testosterone (or whatever) keep me distracted from math back then.
 
2012-12-10 09:26:02 AM  
My wife excelled at math in high school to the point that in college she skipped Calc I, took Calc II and got an A (and got credit as if she took both classes). Despite this she majored in History, which she now regrets, largely because she felt that it was a woman's field, while math was a man's field. I have a female fried who is a chemistry post-doc (the field isn't as women deficient as math or physics, but it's still pretty bad), and she says there's constant, obvious low level gender discrimination, particularly when it comes to which CVs get selected for the interview round during job searches. It's not that women can't do the work at the grad level, it's that they know it will be such a lousy work environment that all but the most dedicated choose another field, or (like my wife) they just self selected out of the field before they started their undergrad.
 
2012-12-10 09:26:53 AM  

CeroX: So has anyone mentioned that women would be better at math and science like they appear to be during adolescence and through puberty, but by the end of puberty girls figured out that the hot successful guys won't sleep with girls they are intimidated intellectually by?


This was addressed in Revenge of the Nerds
 
2012-12-10 09:27:49 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: So.... after all the warbling..... is the program effective? Are the students doing better academically now then they were before the program was introduced?


Whoa, that would be all sciency to figure that out. It's much more important that they all feel good about themselves.
 
2012-12-10 09:28:55 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Actually, this is the type of conversation I was trying to provoke. The knee jerk reaction is too often that we must be politically correct and any acknowledgement of differences must be overlooked. Looking at the differences critically and determining if we are looking at something substantive is much more constructive than 'Stupid rednecks doing stupid segregation'. I am not actually advocating that girls and boys be taught differently(I think most elementary ed teachers can compensate for any differences in learning styles between genders and individuals), I just think it can be dangerous to assume that they can and will learn the same, without considering the possibility that this model is not working.


I think saying that it's "dangerous" is really just so much pearl-clutching. But that aside, if you want to look at this school as an experiment, that's fine, but (a) you need to eliminate all other variables, so let's see the resumes of the teachers involved, the amount of funding per pupil, the text books, etc.; and (b) you need to follow these students for the next 40-50 years and investigate all outcomes and third party effects.
Drawing any conclusions without doing those seems like it's really just pushing an agenda.

/(c) you also need to remove them from Alabama, since it's already got a ton of gender discrimination in its environment
 
2012-12-10 09:29:12 AM  

Theaetetus: "there are differences and they're innate" is just pounding the table.


Are you aware of how many people in the Academy take exactly this position? (implicitly - Skinner was full of shiat, there are no intellectual differences between men and women, GID and Homosexuality are congenital)

Now I'm not saying that all of the above three premises can't be true at the same time, but if they are that would be very interesting.

I think that many academics take positions on these issues for political reasons - and keep those positions uncritically.
 
2012-12-10 09:29:28 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Looking at the differences critically and determining if we are looking at something substantive is much more constructive than 'Stupid rednecks doing stupid segregation'.


If that were what the stupid rednecks actually were doing here, I'd agree. Then again many of us have been over this point.

The notion that everyone can be taught in exactly the same way and all involved receiving equal benefit from it I don't really believe is up for debate. We know that's not the case.

We also know that the conceit that we can do this isn't really grounded in science so much as it's grounded in the needs of society. We select a method of education that is "mostly" beneficial for the majority of people subject to it as a matter of efficiency. We understand there will be outliers, of course. The Special Education system was conceived to catch the secondary and tertiary cases before they fall through the cracks.

And even that is far from an ideal system- which I can tell you from a lot of personal experience.


The mistake here isn't in acknowledging that some students learn differently. We already know they do. The mistake is assuming they learn differently, and in oddly specific ways, and then ascribing these differences to a suspect (and largely superficial) factor- in this case: gender.
 
2012-12-10 09:29:28 AM  
2c

While there may be a lot of talk about how math and science are male subjects people should note that girls are either closing the gap or are now outperforming boys (depending on your location) and have been outperforming boys in language and literature for some time.

The idea that boys are better at math, or academia in general, is an idea built on very shaky foundations.
 
2012-12-10 09:30:14 AM  

ph0rk: If you were a betting person you'd wager the individual from group a has a higher score than an individual from group b (absent individual evidence) because that is the safer bet.


If you were a betting person, you wouldn't take a bet with 10:1 odds against you unless the payoff was huge...

... which raises the question - what's the huge payoff in gender discrimination that leads people to enforce it?
 
2012-12-10 09:30:22 AM  
Alabama: Making Kentucky look progressive since 1819.
 
2012-12-10 09:31:00 AM  
Wikipedia: Michael Gurian is an American author and social philosopher. He was trained as a family therapist and went on to become a corporate consultant. He has published over twenty-one books several of which were New York Times bestsellers.

Gurian taught at Gonzaga University, Eastern Washington University, and Ankara University. He was the founder of the Gurian Institute, which trains professionals who deal with the developmental aspects of childhood. His work tends to focus on gender differences.


Speaking as someone with a strong background in philosophy, this guy is not a recognized "social philosopher." Apparently he's a guy who has a pet theory and scours popular books on sociology for whatever support he can find. Then he writes a bunch of books about the same exact thing.
 
2012-12-10 09:31:06 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: 2c

While there may be a lot of talk about how math and science are male subjects people should note that girls are either closing the gap or are now outperforming boys (depending on your location) and have been outperforming boys in language and literature for some time.

The idea that boys are better at math, or academia in general, is an idea built on very shaky foundations.


Boys are certainly better at dropping out of high school, not going to college, and not graduating from college if they do go, however.
 
2012-12-10 09:31:42 AM  

Theaetetus: ph0rk: If you were a betting person you'd wager the individual from group a has a higher score than an individual from group b (absent individual evidence) because that is the safer bet.

If you were a betting person, you wouldn't take a bet with 10:1 odds against you unless the payoff was huge...

... which raises the question - what's the huge payoff in gender discrimination that leads people to enforce it?


Sandwiches, obviously.
 
2012-12-10 09:31:42 AM  

ph0rk: Theaetetus: "there are differences and they're innate" is just pounding the table.

Are you aware of how many people in the Academy take exactly this position? (implicitly - Skinner was full of shiat, there are no intellectual differences between men and women, GID and Homosexuality are congenital)

Now I'm not saying that all of the above three premises can't be true at the same time, but if they are that would be very interesting.

I think that many academics take positions on these issues for political reasons - and keep those positions uncritically.


www.gonzotimes.com
 
2012-12-10 09:33:09 AM  

MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: MycroftHolmes: HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes:

A 30 second GIS yielded the following articles that suggest a link between testosterone and greater learning capabilities (although some of this is more relevant to people with testosterone deficiencies)


Two of three articles that you provided looked at the effects of testosterone in hypogonadal men, and one of the articles dealt with an animal model. While using patients for studies like this can be informing, there is no clear cut case that you would see any benefits in normal healthy humans. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are a limited number of androgen (testosterone) receptors in the brain, and once these are all in use, you will not see any more effect. However, when you have men who do not produce enough testosterone, raising the levels of the hormone is likely to have some positive effect.

A similar thing can be said for animal models. While rats do have a similar brain to humans, it is not the same. Animal modeling is never meant to be a definitive replacement for human research, but rather as a guide post for future research that could be done in humans. A way point of sorts.
 
2012-12-10 09:33:22 AM  

ph0rk: Theaetetus: "there are differences and they're innate" is just pounding the table.

Are you aware of how many people in the Academy take exactly this position? (implicitly - Skinner was full of shiat, there are no intellectual differences between men and women, GID and Homosexuality are congenital)

Now I'm not saying that all of the above three premises can't be true at the same time, but if they are that would be very interesting.

I think that many academics take positions on these issues for political reasons - and keep those positions uncritically.


Not many. I've certainly never seen one who flat out denies that any differences exist. Instead, they argue about the why those differences exist, what variables are at play, and what effect they may have. Do you have a citation to someone in the field who believes that, for example, men and women score exactly the same on SAT tests on average?
 
2012-12-10 09:34:59 AM  
Successful Hot Male: "Clearly there's some issue here with energy retention, i just can't figure it out!"
Attractive Single Female: "Oh, that? If you simply use encapsulated phase-change materials in the node, then you could reduce the effects of the second law, thereby increasing energy retention efficiency...
Successful Hot Male: .......
Attractive Single Female: "uhhuh, i mean... Is that a sale on shoes? I LOVE shoes!"
 
2012-12-10 09:35:37 AM  

Robert1966: Apparently he's a guy who has a pet theory and scours popular books on sociology for whatever support he can find. Then he writes a bunch of books about the same exact thing.


Oddly enough, this is almost exactly how I used to write argumentative papers I didn't really care to write in College.

Even I was more than happy to tell my Professors they were by and large, bullshiat. But then again, I wasn't basing a business on my Academic shenanigans...
 
2012-12-10 09:35:40 AM  

MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: MycroftHolmes: HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.

So, your belief is that the brains, as well as the abilities to learn and the methods of learning and observation, are identical between males and females at birth? There are no physiological or neurological differences that can impact learning styles?

Do you believe testosterone makes people better at math?

I have no opinion on that, having not really researched the matter. I can say with confidence that testosterone has a significant affect on growth, so it is not beyond the pale to believe that the presence of growth hormones can improve mental growth as well as physical.

A 30 second GIS yielded the following articles that suggest a link between testosterone and greater learning capabilities (although some of this is more relevant to people with testosterone deficiencies)

Link
Link
Link



Ok well

According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone

The ACLU contends this is pseudo science, do you disagree?
 
2012-12-10 09:37:15 AM  

Robert1966: Apparently he's a guy who has a pet theory and scours popular books on sociology for whatever support he can find. Then he writes a bunch of books about the same exact thing.


This.
 
2012-12-10 09:37:36 AM  

giftedmadness: boys are different from girls? amazing! no way....

and the quote from the headline is never found in the article


I know it's hard, but try to read up to the 5th paragraph:

According to the complaint filed by the ACLU, instructions for teaching boys call for stressing heroic behavior that shows what it means to "be a man." According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.
 
2012-12-10 09:39:35 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.


Actually, that's not true. It's been found that toy preference is innately different between boys and girls. They tested this with monkey so as to avoid human cultural preferences and still found that the male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls.
 
2012-12-10 09:40:49 AM  
Everyone knows that without regular pelvic massage, people of the female persuasion are subject to hysteria and the vapors.
 
2012-12-10 09:43:23 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?

the wiring starts off the same - blank slate. it is the parenting that differs, thereby causing the personalities to be set in a male or female classical role typically.

Actually, that's not true. It's been found that toy preference is innately different between boys and girls. They tested this with monkey so as to avoid human cultural preferences and still found that the male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls.


They've also found in monkeys that there's so such damn thing as a "mothering instinct" in girl monkeys.

My sympathies to the girl-monkey who had to prove this...
 
2012-12-10 09:43:42 AM  
What's important to Alabamaians/The South: -not in any particular order-

1)God

2)Football - sports in general

3)Nascar

4)Booze

5) cliques (being in the 'right' social circles)

6) Race - the blacks are just as prejudiced as the whites

7)Republican party -- the majority (~60%) of Alabamaians (and the south) are Republican and poor. they don't even know who in D.C. is against their interests. they vote for their enemy in washington.


What is not important to Alabamaians/The South:

1) the ability to reason. the ability to take information/facts and make reasonable conclusions/judgments about them without using 'God' as a source.

2)Taxes -they're evil and ruining freedom. even though the South gets more Federal Money than any other section of the United States. ironic to say the least.
 
2012-12-10 09:44:38 AM  

Theaetetus: Do you have a citation to someone in the field who believes that, for example, men and women score exactly the same on SAT tests on average?


In the field of psychometrics? No. In allied fields, the sentiments are real and more common than I'd like.

In the span of an hour the same individual may claim:

A: Behaviorism is/was wrong. (theoretically, not morally)
B: GID is real, and the evidence often used for it is valid (innate differences)
C: There are no meaningful differences in intellect between males and females other than those that are learned.

These people have jobs and tenure.
 
2012-12-10 09:45:28 AM  

Linux_Yes: What's important to Alabamaians/The South: -not in any particular order-

1)God

2)Football - sports in general

3)Nascar

4)Booze

5) cliques (being in the 'right' social circles)

6) Race - the blacks are just as prejudiced as the whites

7)Republican party -- the majority (~60%) of Alabamaians (and the south) are Republican and poor. they don't even know who in D.C. is against their interests. they vote for their enemy in washington.


What is not important to Alabamaians/The South:

1) the ability to reason. the ability to take information/facts and make reasonable conclusions/judgments about them without using 'God' as a source.

2)Taxes -they're evil and ruining freedom. even though the South gets more Federal Money than any other section of the United States. ironic to say the least.



addendum:

forgot one:

FOX News is the only source of real news in the South. all other sources are lying 'librals'
 
2012-12-10 09:46:06 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: Actually, that's not true. It's been found that toy preference is innately different between boys and girls. They tested this with monkey so as to avoid human cultural preferences and still found that the male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls.


... except that the "active toys" and "dolls" had other variable differences. For example, the active toys had bright colors while the dolls had muted colors. Why isn't the conclusion that male monkeys have dimmer color vision? Furthermore, if you read the study, you find that the statement "the girl monkeys liked dolls" is false - the study actually found that girl monkeys preferred both toys equally, while the boy monkeys showed a slight preference for the brightly colored toy.

And finally, the study didn't avoid human cultural preferences at all - the toys were specifically chosen to be a "boy's toy" and a "girl's toy", and so the study was really testing how well monkeys conform to human stereotypes. And as the data showed, girl monkeys didn't conform - or, rather, no one likes passive bland toys that much.
 
2012-12-10 09:48:39 AM  

Big Ramifications: Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?


Eh, I really think part of it is issues at the younger levels. Because if you don't get a strong math foundation as a kid, you are NOT going to be good, or interested in it at the higher levels. And we still have people saying "Oh, math is hard for girls", which would tend to encourage those having difficulty to just give up: since, clearly they can't understand because they're girls.

Which is an injustice, becuase math can be tricky, period.

And different people need it taught differently (much like physics. The teaching style needs to differ based on who's learning it, and for what purpose. Blasting through proof after proof is not, for instance, terribly helpful for engineering majors, if you don't give them examples, I've found.)
 
2012-12-10 09:48:44 AM  

ph0rk: Theaetetus: Do you have a citation to someone in the field who believes that, for example, men and women score exactly the same on SAT tests on average?

In the field of psychometrics? No. In allied fields, the sentiments are real and more common than I'd like.

In the span of an hour the same individual may claim:

A: Behaviorism is/was wrong. (theoretically, not morally)
B: GID is real, and the evidence often used for it is valid (innate differences)
C: There are no meaningful differences in intellect between males and females other than those that are learned.

These people have jobs and tenure.


So, still no... No one is claiming there are no differences - they're debating the reason for those differences (e.g. "learned), as I said. Hence why I submit that the claim that someone out there believes there are no differences is merely straw feminism.
 
2012-12-10 09:49:28 AM  
This foolishness must stop. It is impossible to continue pussification the American male if he is in a same sex classroom wherein his maleness is emphasized. The feminist agenda is always more important.
 
2012-12-10 09:50:54 AM  

Theaetetus: Arthur Jumbles: Actually, that's not true. It's been found that toy preference is innately different between boys and girls. They tested this with monkey so as to avoid human cultural preferences and still found that the male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls.

... except that the "active toys" and "dolls" had other variable differences. For example, the active toys had bright colors while the dolls had muted colors. Why isn't the conclusion that male monkeys have dimmer color vision? Furthermore, if you read the study, you find that the statement "the girl monkeys liked dolls" is false - the study actually found that girl monkeys preferred both toys equally, while the boy monkeys showed a slight preference for the brightly colored toy.

And finally, the study didn't avoid human cultural preferences at all - the toys were specifically chosen to be a "boy's toy" and a "girl's toy", and so the study was really testing how well monkeys conform to human stereotypes. And as the data showed, girl monkeys didn't conform - or, rather, no one likes passive bland toys that much.


The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.
 
2012-12-10 09:51:32 AM  

Theaetetus: Arthur Jumbles: Actually, that's not true. It's been found that toy preference is innately different between boys and girls. They tested this with monkey so as to avoid human cultural preferences and still found that the male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls.

... except that the "active toys" and "dolls" had other variable differences. For example, the active toys had bright colors while the dolls had muted colors. Why isn't the conclusion that male monkeys have dimmer color vision? Furthermore, if you read the study, you find that the statement "the girl monkeys liked dolls" is false - the study actually found that girl monkeys preferred both toys equally, while the boy monkeys showed a slight preference for the brightly colored toy.

And finally, the study didn't avoid human cultural preferences at all - the toys were specifically chosen to be a "boy's toy" and a "girl's toy", and so the study was really testing how well monkeys conform to human stereotypes. And as the data showed, girl monkeys didn't conform - or, rather, no one likes passive bland toys that much.


I guess today's lesson is that:

1) Monkey's violate human gender stereotypes
2) statistical significance ≠ practical significance
3) People misunderstand and misinterpret research either intentionally to make money by writing books OR other people end up reading said books, thus perpetuating that woman are only smart at math a few days of the month.
 
2012-12-10 09:53:05 AM  
I can understand having some of the classes separated, do boys really need to go to Sammich class?
 
2012-12-10 09:53:34 AM  
I haven't seen this many White Knights gathered in one place since that Ren Faire in Minnesota.
 
2012-12-10 09:54:51 AM  
Meh, there are enough differences between the sexes to warrant investigation, maybe even experimental customized education as such.

But making out as if it's proven fact is total bullshiat.

I do see segregated-by-sex classes as a viable test, or a local need.

Boys can and do get strange around girls, typically in a more loud and even physical nature. Be it showing off and displaying feathers, to being mean because of anxiety, we've all seen it, and it can be very disruptive. If it's a constant social problem in a given region(as it can be in more redneck places where misogyny is the norm in adults[ie the south]), it may indeed be a necessary step....at least part of the time. It can benefit such troubled youth to teach them separately about what they are doing wrong(typically boys), but singling them out can cause nothing but more resentment and dedication to the ill favored behavior.

Constant segregation of the sexes, however, shouldn't happen, evercoontil it comes to individuals that prove they cannot get along). Same as homeschooled or sheltered children, they get into the real world and fark up big. Let them learn from more innocent mistakes while young, the results won't be so devastating as they can be later in life.
 
2012-12-10 09:55:49 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: Theaetetus: Arthur Jumbles: Actually, that's not true. It's been found that toy preference is innately different between boys and girls. They tested this with monkey so as to avoid human cultural preferences and still found that the male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls.

... except that the "active toys" and "dolls" had other variable differences. For example, the active toys had bright colors while the dolls had muted colors. Why isn't the conclusion that male monkeys have dimmer color vision? Furthermore, if you read the study, you find that the statement "the girl monkeys liked dolls" is false - the study actually found that girl monkeys preferred both toys equally, while the boy monkeys showed a slight preference for the brightly colored toy.

And finally, the study didn't avoid human cultural preferences at all - the toys were specifically chosen to be a "boy's toy" and a "girl's toy", and so the study was really testing how well monkeys conform to human stereotypes. And as the data showed, girl monkeys didn't conform - or, rather, no one likes passive bland toys that much.

The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.


Uh, yes? Hooray? See above - this is straw feminism. No one claims there is no difference, so having a study that only proves conclusively that there's a difference is not contradicting any existing claims, nor does it support any other conclusion.
 
2012-12-10 09:56:26 AM  
separate but equal. yea, right.
 
2012-12-10 09:57:02 AM  

Phinn: I haven't seen this many White Knights gathered in one place since that Ren Faire in Minnesota.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-10 09:57:20 AM  
There is nothing wrong with this at all. Anyone who lives in the real world quickly realizes that the overwhelming majority of women are overly emotional, neurotic, and feel they are entitled to be a complete biatch if they are having a bad day. A few months ago at work I moved all of the women onto one side of the office to keep them away from everyone else and work has never been better.
 
2012-12-10 09:58:02 AM  

fusillade762: As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.



lol

SFW

Link
 
2012-12-10 09:59:33 AM  

BronyMedic: Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.

Jake. It's Alabama. You can't do anything about it.

/Spent a lot of my life on the AL/TN/MS border. Jesus Christ, the stupidity.
//Jesus Christ seemed to have a lot to do with their stupidity, actually



they are ignorant and proud of it. they believe their ignorance is just as valuable as your knowledge.
 
2012-12-10 10:00:17 AM  

Theaetetus: Arthur Jumbles: Theaetetus: Arthur Jumbles: Actually, that's not true. It's been found that toy preference is innately different between boys and girls. They tested this with monkey so as to avoid human cultural preferences and still found that the male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls.

... except that the "active toys" and "dolls" had other variable differences. For example, the active toys had bright colors while the dolls had muted colors. Why isn't the conclusion that male monkeys have dimmer color vision? Furthermore, if you read the study, you find that the statement "the girl monkeys liked dolls" is false - the study actually found that girl monkeys preferred both toys equally, while the boy monkeys showed a slight preference for the brightly colored toy.

And finally, the study didn't avoid human cultural preferences at all - the toys were specifically chosen to be a "boy's toy" and a "girl's toy", and so the study was really testing how well monkeys conform to human stereotypes. And as the data showed, girl monkeys didn't conform - or, rather, no one likes passive bland toys that much.

The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.

Uh, yes? Hooray? See above - this is straw feminism. No one claims there is no difference, so having a study that only proves conclusively that there's a difference is not contradicting any existing claims, nor does it support any other conclusion.


Specifically, your conclusions above - "innate difference in toy preference" and "male baby monkeys preferred active toys while the girl monkeys liked dolls" - are unsupported. All the study showed was "male baby monkeys have a preference for a bright red object with spinnable bright blue wheels over a plush brown object with no moving parts" and "girl baby monkeys had no particular preference between the objects".
Trying to extend that to "active toys", "dolls", or even "toys" in general is overreaching.
 
2012-12-10 10:00:52 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.



the only exercise a girl is supposed to get is hobbing up and down on her husband's schlong.
 
2012-12-10 10:00:58 AM  
I am a cognitive neuro-gender psychology hormone therapist studier MFA PhD-ish and I can tell you truthishly that the studies of testosterone and maleness irregardless of maths is a truth.

/going back for another PhD in wimmins studies with a specialty in sammiches
 
2012-12-10 10:02:34 AM  
simplicimus: Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.

That argument is bizarre. I went through 12 years of Catholic, the first eight years mixed gender, the last four segregated. The rationale? Mixed gender would be too distracting for high schoolers (which has a certain validity). But not because boys were smarter.


That excuse could have been used and it would have caused less problems than saying boys are smarter, the speaker displayed his own prejudices with that remark.
 
2012-12-10 10:02:50 AM  

SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: But left to their own devices, men and women tend to naturally choose paths that reflect their gemder stereotype.

I don't really know that this is a paradox, so much as it is evidence of how hard it is to combat stereotypes (of the sort generally put in place, maintained and enforced by conservative social movements) once they're firmly-rooted in a culture.

It's only a "paradox" if you assume that less than a century is enough to completely expunge all previously-held preconceptions.

It isn't.


The paradox is that liberal societies have more pronounced gender stereotypes than conservative ones. That's the paradox.

I thought that was made clear.
 
2012-12-10 10:03:50 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I like that the comments section seems convinced that the ACLU is the federal government.

Alabama!


Alabama being taken over by either one would be a huge improvement.
 
2012-12-10 10:05:40 AM  
Link


/math was my best subject in school
//stupid Alabama school officials can kiss my grits
 
2012-12-10 10:06:15 AM  

Arthur Jumbles:
The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.


So we should base educational policy on slight behavioral differences found on a study of 34 rhesus monkeys?
 
2012-12-10 10:07:26 AM  

megarian: I am a cognitive neuro-gender psychology hormone therapist studier MFA PhD-ish and I can tell you truthishly that the studies of testosterone and maleness irregardless of maths is a truth.


I parsed this as "I've been in school for many years. Whether or not math exists, the relationship between maleness and testosterone has been studied". Was I close?
 
2012-12-10 10:09:23 AM  
Aside from peepees and vayjays (and boobies) males and females are exactly the same in each and every way.

EXACTLY THE SAME.
 
2012-12-10 10:09:30 AM  
Of course women are inferior, they wouldn't be submissive nor look for someone to take care of them if they weren't.

I mean state the damn obvious people, as you all know how people with Down's syndrome are inferior but we all know it's not nice to tease them, but it doesn't change the fact that they are.
 
2012-12-10 10:10:14 AM  

Kittypie070: [kitten jumps up carefully into Rik01's lap, purrs nicely]


When did Blofeld ever make a kids-these-days speech?
 
2012-12-10 10:10:50 AM  
 
2012-12-10 10:12:00 AM  

you have pee hands: megarian: I am a cognitive neuro-gender psychology hormone therapist studier MFA PhD-ish and I can tell you truthishly that the studies of testosterone and maleness irregardless of maths is a truth.

I parsed this as "I've been in school for many years. Whether or not math exists, the relationship between maleness and testosterone has been studied". Was I close?


*shrug* sure!
 
2012-12-10 10:13:48 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Arthur Jumbles:
The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.

So we should base educational policy on slight behavioral differences found on a study of 34 rhesus monkeys?


Why do people always assume that noting a difference is that same as suggesting policy be enacted nao!, instead of the more rational implication that it simply warrants further study?

I know, I know, Welcome to Fark, but still...
 
2012-12-10 10:16:39 AM  

fredklein: giftedmadness: boys are different from girls? amazing! no way....

and the quote from the headline is never found in the article

I know it's hard, but try to read up to the 5th paragraph:

According to the complaint filed by the ACLU, instructions for teaching boys call for stressing heroic behavior that shows what it means to "be a man." According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.


Maybe giftedmadness missed it because he's at a low point in his menstrual cycle.
 
2012-12-10 10:19:58 AM  

Phinn: I haven't seen this many White Knights gathered in one place since that Ren Faire in Minnesota.


How about at that Canadian SCA tourney?
 
2012-12-10 10:20:38 AM  

someonelse: Maybe giftedmadness missed it because he's at a low point in his menstrual cycle.


Biorhythms! LOL!
 
2012-12-10 10:21:12 AM  
My understanding was that sex differences in mathematical ability at school had been proven to be caused by the expectations of teachers, and that this had now changed to the point where girls these days typically outperform boys in maths at school level.

THIS has been used for an argument for segregating the sexes in maths classes - it is something to do with the boys being distracted, as far as I recall.
 
2012-12-10 10:21:29 AM  
Simpsons did it!
 
2012-12-10 10:23:10 AM  
Old enough to know better: I don't know which is worse. Alabama, or the bastards in the comments section attacking the article writer.

Since my work filters are blocking the site, why is the article writer being attacked?
 
2012-12-10 10:23:28 AM  

ChuDogg: The paradox is that liberal societies have more pronounced gender stereotypes than conservative ones.


And, as I said, those societies are still hanging on to those stereotypes despite having become "liberal", hence it's not really much of a paradox, or a shock, for that matter.

I get that it's supposed to seem shocking or paradoxical. It's just that it's not either of those things, really. Liberal people still have conservative twitches, and the most die hard, New Deal-hating Conservative still likes him his social security checks. Is the notion that you can find even the most grotesque of ideological hypocrisy in a single individual really all that alarming in this day and age?

I don't think so.


Also I'd hasten to argue that referring to traditional western stereotypes of gender as "natural" (as evidenced by "girls naturally gravitating to gender stereotypes") is, well... pretty baseless, unless you're basing your concepts of "natural gender stereotypes" purely on a Eurocentric view of things.
 
2012-12-10 10:23:49 AM  

Amos Quito: Aside from peepees and vayjays (and boobies) males and females are exactly the same in each and every way.

EXACTLY THE SAME.


You've overlooked the sammich making characteristic.
 
2012-12-10 10:25:18 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: Kittypie070: [kitten jumps up carefully into Rik01's lap, purrs nicely]

When did Blofeld ever make a kids-these-days speech?

Do you expect me to lament the decline of our modern society?

No Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!

 
2012-12-10 10:25:41 AM  

Theaetetus: ChuDogg: orbister: Big Ramifications: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

That's an interesting question. When I was at university, maths was roughly 50:50 at undergraduate level and roughly 20:1 male to female at postgrad. Physics, on the other hand, had a much higher proportion of women postgrads than undergrads.

This known as the "norway paradox". As societies become more liberal, gender norms become even more pronounced in things like education. Norway prides itself on being one of the more feminist minded countries and starts it education process from a very young age. Yet the rate of female norwegians going into maths and sciences is one the lowest in the world, even lower than places like saudi arabia and pakistan. The reason being conservative structures "force the outcome", as well as sone liberal societs like the US and britain where they use quotas to force a certain amount of female grads. But left to their own devices, men and women tend to naturally choose paths that reflect their gemder stereotype. Theres a norwegian documentary about it ill try to find it sometime today.

I'm not sure it's really a paradox. Here's the statistics on employment and education in Norway over the past 25 years. Taking as a reasonable assumption (but feel free to argue it) that graduate level professors tend to be (a) older than their students and (b) have significant amounts of higher education, it should be evident that, due to the relatively few numbers of women in higher education twenty years ago, there would be correspondingly few numbers of women teaching in higher education now. Given few women teaching in the profession, it would appear to be less appealing for younger women seeking entry.

However, given the rise of women in education as shown by that chart, I would suspect that the "paradox" is really just time-based hysteresis and will go away in a decade or two.


The problem with that is within Norway itself the disparity had grown since the 70s and 80s. So most of the arguements that it was a holdover from a conservative era or were a product of education or social norms.

I will have to try and find the documnentary.
 
2012-12-10 10:25:45 AM  

Rik01: The older I get, the more absolutely stupid humanity seems to become.

I grew up in the 50's and got used to Stupid, but by the 60's, changes were taking place that would be profound and for the overall good. Now we exist in a world of electronic miracles, which has shrunk the world dramatically, opened up borders, crossed the barriers of tradition, language, religion and society, exposed people to the thoughts of millions and brought vast amounts of education to your home, for free, at the click of a mouse.

I've seen 'liberation' in many forms and freedoms flourish like never before. I've watched traditions fall and civilizations begin to blend as free thinkers began to be heard.

However, as always, there seems to be an undercurrent of Stupid, which threatens to suck civilization back down into the Dark Ages and some people cling to archaic ideas and hire lawyers more than willing to take their money and tie up the courts in an effort to suppress the rights of others and make a joke of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Maybe pushing so much electronic advances on people was done before the species had matured enough to grasp them. The Internet and cell phones have given rise to new, expansive outlets for the Lunatic Fringe and hate groups, people who spew hate over things they don't understand and others who spread misinformation mainly because they can.

Stupid seems to thrive in the Southern States of the USA, where many folks are still fighting the civil war and cling to old traditions and philosophies.

Whoever is responsible for reinstating a segregational system that was forcibly ended by law at the end of the 18th century needs to have his or her collective arses kicked and loose their positions of power and influence.

Humanity never fails to disappoint me.


yep.

The more some people pull ahead, the more some willingly pull themselves further behind. It amazes me. There are people who still think that computers are bad, in the complete absence of any actual logic. They say this while having a smartphone, driving a car, using a telephone, etc.
 
2012-12-10 10:26:22 AM  

letrole: Heterosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.


Athiesm is a religioun.
 
2012-12-10 10:27:19 AM  
HindiDiscoMonster: Lanadapter: So, girls are to boys as half-demons are to full blooded demons in inuyasha?

what language is this?


Otaku.
 
2012-12-10 10:28:13 AM  

BadJazz: letrole: Heterosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.

Athiesm is a religioun.


Frankenstien never scared me
 
2012-12-10 10:28:25 AM  

MycroftHolmes: So, segregating classes may be counterproductive, but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively? I know it is not politically correct to acknowledge things that should be patently obvious but inconvenient, but is anyone denying the fact that the male and female brains process things differently, and have different fundamental wiring?


Yes. Just about every anthropologist I have known would vehemently deny that such a basic wiring exists. There is no actual basis for believing that this scenario has been true long enough to have impacted human evolution in such strong terms.

There is every evidence that the conclusion comes from trying to fallaciously describe cultural conditioning through a physical means. This whole matter is begging the question.

Of course you find psychologists and education types arguing that it is based in deep human prehistory. But the people who study that area specifically have found no evidence of it, and moreover brain imaging scans performed by bioanthro types looking at this problem have found no correlation between hemispheric dominance and aptitude at learning math and science.

All of the objective, evidence-based science refutes the concept. Those who push it do so because it makes sense to them and they can find older studies that explain what you describe. If they read the journals that the researchers publish in, they reject the newer findings as "pc thinking" and believe that the older data are settled despite being based on only indirect observation.

This has as little validity as The Bell Curve's argument for hereditary intelligence. Any natural variation is minimal and it is the environment that informs achievement.
 
2012-12-10 10:30:59 AM  

namegoeshere: The correct testosterone argument: Due to a flood of superfluous testosterone, boys find it har... er... more difficult to concentrate on their academic subjects when there are female students in yoga pants answering the problems on the board.

I could work with this.


Yeah, it was kind of a double whammy. Teacher would call us up in the same order every day, so the cheerleader I had a hopeless crush on would go before me, then I'd have to go up next and awkwardly carry my notebook in front of me until I was squarely facing the board.
This is why I've always supported a uniform code. If girls in my 8th grade class had been wearing yoga pants, I would have been diagnosed with chronic priapism.
 
2012-12-10 10:33:03 AM  

ChuDogg: [Norway]


This is probably the source for that documentary (or came from it). They're cautious not to draw any conclusions about inherent preferences, though:
The labour market is, however, gender divided. We find differences in employment levels between women and men within different industries and different occupations. It is also the case that far more men than women work in the private labour market. This is linked to the fact that women are employed with administration, care (the health service, nurseries) and teaching jobs to a greater extent than men, and that these are major public sector industries. It is also the case that women work in jobs that are less affected by economic trends than men.
Labour market gender segregation is perhaps a topic that is not reflected upon, and is almost a "natural" state. The mechanisms that lie behind it remain diffuse. Changes in the labour market happen slowly. Education statistics also show that pupils and students follow the traditional gender role pattern to a large extent in their choice of education. To the degree that there are changes, the trend is greater for women to take up male-dominated occupations (and education) than vice versa.
We should also be aware that there are differences between women and between men in working life (cf. Solheim and Ellingsæter 2003). Women and men are not homogeneous groups. Women and men are found in the entire spectrum of occupations. As with men, women also have access to managerial positions but we also find women and men on the shop floor. In this context, it may be the case that social background, or class, together with gender also "divide" the labour market. This indicates that there are complex causal relations for the labour market being so gender divided.
 
2012-12-10 10:33:32 AM  

Jake Havechek: Alabama is closing fast with Florida as the dumbest state in the union.


I think Alabama is ahead in home grown dumb...not a lot of tourists, immigration from other states, etc. FL has the wonderful collection of dumb and derp from all over the country. Tourists, snowbirds, tons of immigration from other states. Worst yet (especially in my area, lucky me) is the immigration for drugs. The Tampa Bay area is well known for meth, and of course we have pill mills too.

Its bad enough to see a couple geezers in a nice car or truck with out of state plates, but you know they are just a temporary annoyance, and they are gonna spend some money while here. The thing that really sucks is a beat-up car or truck with out of state plates stacked 5 deep with dirty white trash...you know they arent on vacation.
 
2012-12-10 10:34:00 AM  

Joe Blowme: BadJazz: letrole: Heterosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.

Athiesm is a religioun.

Frankenstien never scared me

 

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-10 10:37:09 AM  
No He-Man Women Haters Club picture?

I would, but yeah...mobile device.
 
2012-12-10 10:38:40 AM  

megarian: No He-Man Women Haters Club picture?


cdn.uproxx.com

?
 
2012-12-10 10:39:53 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Arthur Jumbles:
The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.

So we should base educational policy on slight behavioral differences found on a study of 34 rhesus monkeys?


Oh.... not a bit. I was just responding to the assertion that people are blank slates.
 
2012-12-10 10:40:52 AM  

SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: The paradox is that liberal societies have more pronounced gender stereotypes than conservative ones.

And, as I said, those societies are still hanging on to those stereotypes despite having become "liberal", hence it's not really much of a paradox, or a shock, for that matter.


Because you see it in both parties, does not mean it's apparent to all. When pointed out and demonstrated to that supposed "liberal" or liberal society it can indeed be a shock.
If we don't discuss things of that nature, people will never learn, so attempting to write it off as "*yawn* not a surprise" sort of sounds like you're attempting to be willfully ignorant, or at least support those that are ignorant, willful or not.

What Chu said is maybe not true in the sense that it's more pronounced, but the lgbt community still largely ascribes heavily to masculine and feminine, instead of just letting people do whatever, completely without a label or getting more accurate(IE kids that play with trucks or lego's aren't masculine, but more mechanically minded than those that play with dolls).

They've become conservative of their new culture in that way.
 
2012-12-10 10:41:28 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Arthur Jumbles:
The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.

So we should base educational policy on slight behavioral differences found on a study of 34 rhesus monkeys?

Oh.... not a bit. I was just responding to the assertion that people are blank slates.


That monkey study seems to show that girls are blank slates.
 
2012-12-10 10:43:10 AM  
Another failure of simplistic thinking.

This stuff (like most things) is not an absolute -- it's all bell curves.

For example, on the average, men are taller than women. Yet I'm taller than my male in-laws (why yes, I am a Farkette). And, although on the average men are stronger than women, back when my shoulder still worked and I did such things, I could beat my brother-in-law at arm-wrestling. Average =/= Worldwalker. Or you. Or anyone.

People with simple solutions like this imagine there are two points, "male" and "female", which can be easily separated. There aren't. There are two bell curves that overlap for the vast majority of their length. Saying "all boys learn like this, and all girls learn like that" makes no more sense than saying "all men are taller than all women." And basing an educational model on that is a recipe for disaster.
 
2012-12-10 10:45:17 AM  

Worldwalker: Another failure of simplistic thinking.

This stuff (like most things) is not an absolute -- it's all bell curves.

For example, on the average, men are taller than women. Yet I'm taller than my male in-laws (why yes, I am a Farkette). And, although on the average men are stronger than women, back when my shoulder still worked and I did such things, I could beat my brother-in-law at arm-wrestling. Average =/= Worldwalker. Or you. Or anyone.

People with simple solutions like this imagine there are two points, "male" and "female", which can be easily separated. There aren't. There are two bell curves that overlap for the vast majority of their length. Saying "all boys learn like this, and all girls learn like that" makes no more sense than saying "all men are taller than all women." And basing an educational model on that is a recipe for disaster.


sounds like a good band name
 
2012-12-10 10:54:09 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Arthur Jumbles:
The key point was there was a difference.... the researchers put there own interpretation upon the results, which I don't agree with, but the difference remained. Whether this was because of color, shape or smell it does prove that there were innate differences in preference by gender and the subjects weren't blank slates.

So we should base educational policy on slight behavioral differences found on a study of 34 rhesus monkeys?

Oh.... not a bit. I was just responding to the assertion that people are blank slates.


Ah - I see I was playing 'Jump to Conclusions' with too much enthauisim.

Counterpoint: Humans (and Rhesus monkeys) are highly social creatures and ones success in society depends very heavily on knowing and understanding the rules of social behavior in the group. This is perhaps the most important skill to learn in either species. Infants learn at an astonishing rate and they learn from taking in everything around them and applying those lessons very quickly. With that in mind is it possible to test even a rhesus monkey for inate social behavior without the subject picking up influences from the rest of the group?
 
2012-12-10 10:56:48 AM  

omeganuepsilon: When pointed out and demonstrated to that supposed "liberal" or liberal society it can indeed be a shock.


Because anyone insulated from reality by their own narrow views is nearly always shocked when confronted with conflicting circumstances, sure... Not long after they tend to repress the incident because processing reality isn't really what they're out to do in the first place. I get that.

I'm not really sure this is the perspective you want to go basing scientific theory on, however.

But feel free to discuss it in the typical "ain't that so crazy?!" way if you like... I guess.

omeganuepsilon: the lgbt community still largely ascribes heavily to masculine and feminine


I've got a few LBGT friends. Probably the most "shocking" story was from a guy I knew who was bisexual. He reported there was a lot of pressure from the community to conform in a "fish-or-foul" sort of way- ala: either you're gay or your straight, decide.

Heard similar stories from people "of color" whose communities sometimes segregated themselves even further by skin tone. And I certainly know that's true in places like India- despite efforts to abolish caste systems.

Yes, it happens. But while some are stuck on the fact that it happens, I'm really more interested in why it happens. In the case Chu mentioned, the "turning liberal" thing really isn't much of a factor as far as I can see. It's just that they are- at some level- subject to the same prejudices and preconceptions which traditionalists have been staunchly defending for centuries.

You don't undo all that in a half century and become magically blind to all categorical preconceptions.

Hell, I'd argue that there's something in the very structure of our education that encourages that sort of thinking- a tendency to see not only things, but entire disciplines as neatly pigeonholed into categories that never overlap in any way, rather than as a continuum of experience and knowledge.
 
2012-12-10 10:58:13 AM  

Worldwalker: Another failure of simplistic thinking.

This stuff (like most things) is not an absolute -- it's all bell curves.

For example, on the average, men are taller than women. Yet I'm taller than my male in-laws (why yes, I am a Farkette). And, although on the average men are stronger than women, back when my shoulder still worked and I did such things, I could beat my brother-in-law at arm-wrestling. Average =/= Worldwalker. Or you. Or anyone.

People with simple solutions like this imagine there are two points, "male" and "female", which can be easily separated. There aren't. There are two bell curves that overlap for the vast majority of their length. Saying "all boys learn like this, and all girls learn like that" makes no more sense than saying "all men are taller than all women." And basing an educational model on that is a recipe for disaster.


So you're tall, articulate and correct.

/ how you doin'?
// yes, I saw the thing about you having in-laws
 
2012-12-10 11:06:17 AM  
Separate but equal.

That's cool, right?
 
2012-12-10 11:08:16 AM  

correct horse battery staple: So you're tall, articulate and correct.


Or her in laws are the DeVitos.
 
2012-12-10 11:10:40 AM  

gadian: I couldn't get the help I needed in Math even though I asked for it. They told me that math is hard and because I'm a girl I'd be better off focusing on reading anyway. I could read just fine and would have preferred the help learning percentages. Why yes, I did grow up in the south. Though, to be fair, my problem with math goes way beyond what tutoring can fix, it borders on illiteracy.


I had the opposite problem--I'm basically incapable of math at the level I should be at (although I'm normal for an American adult, I would appreciate being able to do more) because my mother decided nothing was actually wrong and I was lazy. And I got the impression some of it was that she thought I was being lazy because I bought some kind of gender stereotype.

/I love my mother, but she is incredibly oblivious sometimes.
 
2012-12-10 11:18:40 AM  

GAT_00: Having separate sex education classes by gender really doesn't sound like a problem. I'm pretty sure mine were. But then you get the section Subby quoted:

According to the complaint filed by the ACLU, instructions for teaching boys call for stressing heroic behavior that shows what it means to "be a man." According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

and I'm all with the ACLU here. What a crock of shiat.


Wow, I can't believe anyone seriously believes that shiat.

Has their been any studies concerning whether same-sex is better?

As a tomboy I would have hated same-sex because most of my friends were boys in high school.
 
2012-12-10 11:19:32 AM  

omeganuepsilon: SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: The paradox is that liberal societies have more pronounced gender stereotypes than conservative ones.

And, as I said, those societies are still hanging on to those stereotypes despite having become "liberal", hence it's not really much of a paradox, or a shock, for that matter.

Because you see it in both parties, does not mean it's apparent to all. When pointed out and demonstrated to that supposed "liberal" or liberal society it can indeed be a shock.
If we don't discuss things of that nature, people will never learn, so attempting to write it off as "*yawn* not a surprise" sort of sounds like you're attempting to be willfully ignorant, or at least support those that are ignorant, willful or not.

What Chu said is maybe not true in the sense that it's more pronounced, but the lgbt community still largely ascribes heavily to masculine and feminine, instead of just letting people do whatever, completely without a label or getting more accurate(IE kids that play with trucks or lego's aren't masculine, but more mechanically minded than those that play with dolls).

They've become conservative of their new culture in that way.


Here is the documentary that came out about the subject in Norway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KbHyJ6rLU

It's a 7 part series and is subtitled in English. So I don't expect anybody to comment on it during their work day. Still it is worth checking just to see what is going on in Norway.

As expected, anytime he mentioned that Norway lagged behind in women in Sciences and Engineering, it was almost universally met with allegations of sexism or enforcing gender stereotypes. However, he shows that the discrepancy has grown in the last 20 years, at a time when Norway had almost universally adopted a feminist-oriented outlook in education, government, and society. It's almost axiomatic that gender differences are a social construct, and that boys and girls have total equality and no biological differences in science whatsoever. It's not uncommon to see adverts with boys encouraged to play with dolls and encouraging girls to play with action figures. Families are encouraged to raise their children in gender-neutral enviroments and is met with little resistance from Norwegian society.

Further, Norwegian society often scorns English and British models as antiquated and sexist, while attempting to "force the outcome" by mandated quotas, scholarships, and other incentives to equalize the playing field. This is often the same in conservative societies like Pakistan, where family or strict teachers often "force the outcome" by pushing talented women into sciences and engineering. But in liberal societies like Norway where everyone is encouraged to follow their own path, the result is that these talented women often choose a path like child education, nursing, etc.

Thus, that is the "Norway Paradox". Talented women in a society that refutes gender norms, left to their own devices, choose paths that are more in line with their gender stereotypes. While societies like the US and UK, have structures in place that force women into more rigorous fields. Even conservative societies like Pakistan have better representation as their social structures often force women down these paths.
 
2012-12-10 11:21:09 AM  

ChuDogg: omeganuepsilon: SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: The paradox is that liberal societies have more pronounced gender stereotypes than conservative ones.

And, as I said, those societies are still hanging on to those stereotypes despite having become "liberal", hence it's not really much of a paradox, or a shock, for that matter.

Because you see it in both parties, does not mean it's apparent to all. When pointed out and demonstrated to that supposed "liberal" or liberal society it can indeed be a shock.
If we don't discuss things of that nature, people will never learn, so attempting to write it off as "*yawn* not a surprise" sort of sounds like you're attempting to be willfully ignorant, or at least support those that are ignorant, willful or not.

What Chu said is maybe not true in the sense that it's more pronounced, but the lgbt community still largely ascribes heavily to masculine and feminine, instead of just letting people do whatever, completely without a label or getting more accurate(IE kids that play with trucks or lego's aren't masculine, but more mechanically minded than those that play with dolls).

They've become conservative of their new culture in that way.

Here is the documentary that came out about the subject in Norway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KbHyJ6rLU

It's a 7 part series and is subtitled in English. So I don't expect anybody to comment on it during their work day. Still it is worth checking just to see what is going on in Norway.

As expected, anytime he mentioned that Norway lagged behind in women in Sciences and Engineering, it was almost universally met with allegations of sexism or enforcing gender stereotypes. However, he shows that the discrepancy has grown in the last 20 years, at a time when Norway had almost universally adopted a feminist-oriented outlook in education, government, and society. It's almost axiomatic that gender differences are a social construct, and that boys and girls have total equality and no biological differenc ...


Ok that isn't subtitled. Here is the link on vimeo

http://vimeo.com/19707588
 
2012-12-10 11:26:06 AM  

ghostwind: MycroftHolmes: HotWingConspiracy: MycroftHolmes: HindiDiscoMonster: MycroftHolmes:

A 30 second GIS yielded the following articles that suggest a link between testosterone and greater learning capabilities (although some of this is more relevant to people with testosterone deficiencies)

Two of three articles that you provided looked at the effects of testosterone in hypogonadal men, and one of the articles dealt with an animal model. While using patients for studies like this can be informing, there is no clear cut case that you would see any benefits in normal healthy humans. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are a limited number of androgen (testosterone) receptors in the brain, and once these are all in use, you will not see any more effect. However, when you have men who do not produce enough testosterone, raising the levels of the hormone is likely to have some positive effect.

A similar thing can be said for animal models. While rats do have a similar brain to humans, it is not the same. Animal modeling is never meant to be a definitive replacement for human research, but rather as a guide post for future research that could be done in humans. A way point of sorts.


A very good point.

It's the same sort of thing that leads to reporters saying "X substance causes cancer in mice, therefore it must be a human carcinogen." The popular assumption is that a bunch of healthy mice were fed normal doses of the substance in question, and more of them developed cancer. Actually, that's not the case; all else aside, maintaining an animal colony large enough to see statistically significant effects from a test like that would be prohibitively expensive. Instead, if they want to test if X causes, say, liver cancer, they start with a strain of mice prone to developing liver tumors (maybe one of the arf-null variants), feed a bunch of them massive doses of the substance in question, and see if they develop more liver tumors than a control group. The problem with this is that they've done the equivalent of feeding a group of diabetics plates full of sugar cookies. The data generated is true for that specific genetically susceptible population, and might or might not be applicable to a genetically normal population. There's no way to tell from that data alone.

Same thing here: The effects of testosterone on people who are in some way not part of the normal population (hypogonadal men, in this case) may have nothing whatsoever to do with that normal population, any more than the fact that some people could die from eating a peanut means that peanuts are a toxin to everyone. It may open an avenue of research, and point to something worth investigating, but it doesn't "prove" anything. The "X causes cancer! Doom! Gloom!" stories make me want to slap the fool writing them.
 
2012-12-10 11:31:05 AM  

Joe Blowme: BadJazz: letrole: Heterosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.

Athiesm is a religioun.

Frankenstien never scared me



MARSUPIALS!
 
2012-12-10 11:35:09 AM  
I sorta like the theory, and it's just a theory, that with the sexes you have a difference in standard deviations that are advantageous to the species as a whole. In this theory, the intellectual capability of women doesn't stray as far from the average (yes, I'm not getting picky with my jargon. Stats was a long time ago) while men are spread out from the average, both in good and bad directions. Since you have to figure this is multidimensional, factoring different aspects of intellectual capabilities, the assumption is that you don't get geniuses and dumb-asses, but some people who are better at others at some things. The point here is that Men, only a tiny fraction of which have to survive for the species to continue, are nature's long shot. It's sometimes good and sometimes a ditch digger, but over time things improve for the species as a whole.

Or it could be crap. It does explain, however, why men seem to disproportionately occupy the highest and lowest places on the social ladder while women tend to get by.

Oh, and Alabama needs to have it's collective head examined. That actually made me feel embarrassed for them, like downs kid getting on the wrong buss or something.
 
2012-12-10 11:36:30 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.

They likes their wimminfolks fleshy.


Or unable to fight back - either because they're too fat, too docile, or have little tiny stick arms that couldn't lift anything.
 
2012-12-10 11:40:03 AM  

ChuDogg: omeganuepsilon: SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: The paradox is that liberal societies have more pronounced gender stereotypes than conservative ones.

And, as I said, those societies are still hanging on to those stereotypes despite having become "liberal", hence it's not really much of a paradox, or a shock, for that matter.

Because you see it in both parties, does not mean it's apparent to all. When pointed out and demonstrated to that supposed "liberal" or liberal society it can indeed be a shock.
If we don't discuss things of that nature, people will never learn, so attempting to write it off as "*yawn* not a surprise" sort of sounds like you're attempting to be willfully ignorant, or at least support those that are ignorant, willful or not.

What Chu said is maybe not true in the sense that it's more pronounced, but the lgbt community still largely ascribes heavily to masculine and feminine, instead of just letting people do whatever, completely without a label or getting more accurate(IE kids that play with trucks or lego's aren't masculine, but more mechanically minded than those that play with dolls).

They've become conservative of their new culture in that way.

Here is the documentary that came out about the subject in Norway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KbHyJ6rLU

It's a 7 part series and is subtitled in English. So I don't expect anybody to comment on it during their work day. Still it is worth checking just to see what is going on in Norway.

As expected, anytime he mentioned that Norway lagged behind in women in Sciences and Engineering, it was almost universally met with allegations of sexism or enforcing gender stereotypes. However, he shows that the discrepancy has grown in the last 20 years, at a time when Norway had almost universally adopted a feminist-oriented outlook in education, government, and society. It's almost axiomatic that gender differences are a social construct, and that boys and girls have total equality and no biological differenc ...


I'd argue that while officially Norway adopted a more feminist outlook, you don't know what parents are teaching their kids behind closed doors. Their parents and grandparents grew up in pre-feminist times and a lot of cultural stereotyping still lingers under the surface.

Lois Frankel's work shows that while parents encourage children of both sexes to work and study hard, parents unconsciously encourage their sons into "riskier" careers like CEO and stock broker while encouraging their daughters into "safe" careers like nurse and teaching.

Hell, my own parents encouraged me at a young age to be a teacher so "I could have summers off to raise my future kids." They did not do this any of my brothers, despite being very feminist while raising me.
 
2012-12-10 11:41:40 AM  

SkunkWerks: I'm really more interested in why it happens


Human nature, bonding, which can be cemented further by strife, unity in cause. That bonding often leads to feelings of superiority over outsiders. Jocks pick on nerds. Boys pick on girls, straights pick on gays, whites on blacks, etc.

And nerds making fun of jocks, girls picking on boys, gays picking on straights, and black's on whites, etc.

It's a viscous cycle, and we can't do anything about it if we don't identify it. Being pedantic over "shocking" "paradox" whever. You do find it interesting, as do we, so really, stop being confrontational about how people describe their interest.

/some people

ChuDogg: So I don't expect anybody to comment on it during their work day. Still it is worth checking just to see what is going on in Norway.


I got the ghist, may have seen it in the past, can't devote the time now, and won't be interested later.

I actually like the monkey experiment, even though the scale was small. It had the potential to demonstrate an inclination to mechanical things, or soft things, but was just too small of a scale. If it were done on a more grand scale it may well show similar numbers, lending credence to the theory. Much the way your Norway example does. When given opportunity and choice, X leans to A, Y leans to B.

I saw a similar show once in which animals of all sorts were given what amounts to puzzles they'd have to solve to get to their food. Birds, racoons, monkeys, etc, all managed complicated levers buttons and screw on lids. It'd be interesting to do a study on the success results of the different sexes in the same fashion, as animals don't have society to blame, not really.
 
2012-12-10 11:48:59 AM  

omeganuepsilon: When given opportunity and choice, X leans to A, Y leans to B.( Now with as little bias as possible!)


Meant to include something of the sort, but forgot.

shortymac: I'd argue that while officially Norway adopted a more feminist outlook, you don't know what parents are teaching their kids behind closed doors.


Or a million other things that go into it. That's the problem with studying human psychology. You'll never be able to account for all bias.
A mom can be a girl's idol, or a boy's, for more reasons than you can shake a stick at, or Oedipus can kick in and stir the pot some to varying effects.
 
2012-12-10 11:51:25 AM  

give me doughnuts: Joe Blowme: BadJazz: letrole: Heterosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.

Athiesm is a religioun.

Frankenstien never scared me


MARSUPIALS!



Because they're FAST!
 
2012-12-10 11:51:29 AM  

shortymac: ChuDogg: omeganuepsilon: SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: The paradox is that liberal societies have more pronounced gender stereotypes than conservative ones.

And, as I said, those societies are still hanging on to those stereotypes despite having become "liberal", hence it's not really much of a paradox, or a shock, for that matter.

Because you see it in both parties, does not mean it's apparent to all. When pointed out and demonstrated to that supposed "liberal" or liberal society it can indeed be a shock.
If we don't discuss things of that nature, people will never learn, so attempting to write it off as "*yawn* not a surprise" sort of sounds like you're attempting to be willfully ignorant, or at least support those that are ignorant, willful or not.

What Chu said is maybe not true in the sense that it's more pronounced, but the lgbt community still largely ascribes heavily to masculine and feminine, instead of just letting people do whatever, completely without a label or getting more accurate(IE kids that play with trucks or lego's aren't masculine, but more mechanically minded than those that play with dolls).

They've become conservative of their new culture in that way.

Here is the documentary that came out about the subject in Norway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KbHyJ6rLU

It's a 7 part series and is subtitled in English. So I don't expect anybody to comment on it during their work day. Still it is worth checking just to see what is going on in Norway.

As expected, anytime he mentioned that Norway lagged behind in women in Sciences and Engineering, it was almost universally met with allegations of sexism or enforcing gender stereotypes. However, he shows that the discrepancy has grown in the last 20 years, at a time when Norway had almost universally adopted a feminist-oriented outlook in education, government, and society. It's almost axiomatic that gender differences are a social construct, and that boys and girls have total equality and no biological ...


Yeah, that's true. One of things mentioned about Norway is that after ww2 they had something like 60 years of Social Democratic Rule. Prominent conservatives that supported collaboration with Nazi Germany were marginalized and put in in mental institutions. So starting in the 1950s almost immediately they went into a leftwing perspective in government and social affairs. Women flooded government roles and leaders of industry at a very fast pace.

So they are about 20-30 years ahead of Britain and the US, who still had male-dominated occupations after ww2. So while these changes are relatively recent for us, their feminist outlook began alot earlier than the 1970s and 80s. That period was pretty much a nail in the coffin to them.
 
2012-12-10 11:53:36 AM  

omeganuepsilon: It's a viscous cycle, and we can't do anything about it if we don't identify it.


So, we've never identified this before... ever?

Forgive me for re-iterating things I've already said, but I rather thought this was the point of my "pedantry" on the nature of "shocking allegories regarding ideological hypocrisy" and how they're really a lot more common, and a whole hell of a lot less shocking than you'd think they are.

Moreover, they aren't shocking for the reasons you're suggesting they are.

omeganuepsilon: Being pedantic over "shocking" "paradox" whever. You do find it interesting, as do we, so really, stop being confrontational about how people describe their interest.


If re-treading "shock" recursively and feigning empirical interest by mis-attributing such "alarming" phenomenon so such overly-simplified criteria as "political worldview" is your preferred way of experiencing the world, don't let me stop you (indeed, I can't). By all means. Continue.

shortymac: I'd argue that while officially Norway adopted a more feminist outlook, you don't know what parents are teaching their kids behind closed doors. Their parents and grandparents grew up in pre-feminist times and a lot of cultural stereotyping still lingers under the surface.

Lois Frankel's work shows that while parents encourage children of both sexes to work and study hard, parents unconsciously encourage their sons into "riskier" careers like CEO and stock broker while encouraging their daughters into "safe" careers like nurse and teaching.

Hell, my own parents encouraged me at a young age to be a teacher so "I could have summers off to raise my future kids." They did not do this any of my brothers, despite being very feminist while raising me.


Oh hey, someone gets it. Hi there.

Been saying this for a while. "ZOMG Norway! It has turned liberal! Yet it still ascribes to centuries worth of social conditioning! Le shock and horror!"
 
2012-12-10 11:55:05 AM  
And Alabama pulls ahead in the Stupidest State Derby.

Way to go.
 
2012-12-10 12:01:07 PM  

SkunkWerks: So, we've never identified this before... ever?


No, WE are not all aware of it.

Individuals put it forth, yes. It's been discovered. Word has not gotten out yet, it's still news to some.


SkunkWerks: feigning empirical interest


What does that even mean? We're here on fark discussing it, we're not feigning interest. We ARE interested, albeit to varying degrees from passing conversation to hobby to professional career.

Want to call everyone a hipster or poser, make a simple post like every other jackass and then GTFO.
 
2012-12-10 12:04:51 PM  

serial_crusher: SkunkWerks: MycroftHolmes: but is it not valid to recognize that women and men have different wiring, both physiologically as well as cognitively?

It's valid when your observation focuses on "wiring differences" that don't pertain to "having breasts", "missing penises" and "capacity to make sandwiches", yes.

You know, as much sandwich-making is frequently delegated to women, it is clearly an area that men excel at when dire circumstances force us to take matters into our own hands. Observe, sandwiches made by men:
[bitesofbliss.files.wordpress.com image 189x215]
Sandwiches made by women:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 450x349]


I wholeheartedly disagree.

The cucumber sandwich is not on organic 2109309123091-grain bread
 
2012-12-10 12:16:24 PM  

SkunkWerks: Been saying this for a while. "ZOMG Norway! It has turned liberal! Yet it still ascribes to centuries worth of social conditioning! Le shock and horror!"


^Textbook definition of the strawman fallacy.

My response has been that the gender differences have been getting MORE pronounced through the liberalization of society, not LESS pronounced "but not as fast of a scale as we would like"

At least that's what the dude that made the documentary states. He shows the data to prominent academics and asks why is this difference getting more pronounced. Nobody doubts that the difference exists, but we would think with liberalization and feminist education becoming the norm, that the difference would reduce or at least stay the same.

I believe
 
2012-12-10 12:19:14 PM  

omeganuepsilon: What does that even mean?


Feign = To fake or pretend.

Empirical = Nature of the rigorous scientific process of inquiry.

Interest = The state of expressing a genuine stake in a thing or pursuit.

It's not hard.

omeganuepsilon: No


Yes. Yes we have. We've also been shocked before about how contrary it all seemed to be. Then we figured out why and moved on to being interested in the underpinnings of that instead.

They say dogs lack a sense of persistent memory. That although they can learn and retain what they learn, anything not impressed into them by way of persistent reinforcement (read: repetition- maybe even "pedantry") gets hopelessly lost in their minds and the next time they experience it, it's just as magical as the first time they ran across it.

What you're all warpped around the axle about right now? I'm reminded.


omeganuepsilon: Want to call everyone a hipster or poser,


No. Also, I didn't.

omeganuepsilon: make a simple post like every other jackass


One issue I have with that plan of attack: you'd understand it better.

And then I wouldn't get to have this lovely conversation we're having in which you get all ragey because I find the nature of your "findings" less insightful and avant garde than you do.

Then again, I was pretty certain that would happen when you decided to jump into the shallow end of the pool. I've had prior experience with you.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-10 12:21:25 PM  

fusillade762: As long as the classes are equal it's OK if they're separated.


They are
Boys study Whiskey brewing and NASCAR repair.
Girls study Opossum cooking and advanced diaper changing.
 
2012-12-10 12:27:51 PM  

ChuDogg: ^Textbook definition of the strawman fallacy.


^Texbook definition of the Upwards Caret Fallacy.

ChuDogg: My response has been that the gender differences have been getting MORE pronounced through the liberalization of society, not LESS pronounced "but not as fast of a scale as we would like"


Please re-state. This bit is confusing in the wording, unless the narrative here is that it's society's actual conscious intent is to widen the gender role gap rather than narrow it.

I'd possibly buy that society is subconsciously sabotaging itself via conscious initiatives to increase gender equality, and that the results are in fact "hilariously contrary", as seems to have been the diatribe so far.

And I'm not entirely sure I agree with that either.

ChuDogg: but we would think with liberalization and feminist education becoming the norm, that the difference would reduce or at least stay the same.


We'd think. And again, Both Shortymac and I have suggested a perfectly viable reason for it:

The social conditioning governing the gender gap is centuries more pervasive than 50 years or so of "progressive" or "liberal" ideology is ever going to successfully tackle.
 
2012-12-10 12:29:09 PM  
Whatever.

SkunkWerks: We've


You insist on speaking on behalf of everyone in multiple threads, but I'm the narcissist?

Get off your cross, sparky, we need the wood.

SkunkWerks: I find the nature of your "findings" less


Straw man. I've listed no "findings".
Well, aside from you being a trollign butthook, intent on demeaning people who find interest in the topic, by labeling them as feigning intersest.

Ah, I've a stalker. Glad to know how you categorize people. Helps me identify who I should ignore.
 
2012-12-10 12:33:15 PM  

ChuDogg: Is this a black school? I read earlier about a school in Chicago that did this and was highly controversial. It was an all boys school and had all of that "be a man" stuff throughout the day. Thing was by the numbers the students had a 100% turn around. These were students who were the lowest of the low, in grades, behavior, criminality, etc. But the students really turned around and it had one of the highest college acceptance if chicago schools.

Personally i wouldnt want this but the average person seems to respond positively to this type of mentorship.


Considering that many children from that area grow up in broken fatherless homes, that type of mentorship is probably very beneficial.

In fact they might benefit as a whole from same-sex education and might drive down teen pregnancy rates.
 
2012-12-10 12:35:15 PM  

omeganuepsilon: You insist on speaking on behalf of everyone in multiple threads, but I'm the narcissist?


Yes. Obviously you don't see yourself as part of the majority of scientists who've moved on to being hung up on far more recent findings.

You think you're special.

omeganuepsilon: Straw man.


How so? And if so, why are you still getting your panties in a knot over it?

Or when I say that I find something to be X, and you find it to be Y, I feel that this is some sort of a revelation that proves something vital.

Or is it just that I have an opinion and am comfortable with it?

omeganuepsilon: Ah, I've a stalker.


Though I've a dim sort of faith in humanity still, I do find people like you fascinating, I admit. I'm honestly curious.
 
2012-12-10 12:36:55 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: ChuDogg: Is this a black school? I read earlier about a school in Chicago that did this and was highly controversial. It was an all boys school and had all of that "be a man" stuff throughout the day. Thing was by the numbers the students had a 100% turn around. These were students who were the lowest of the low, in grades, behavior, criminality, etc. But the students really turned around and it had one of the highest college acceptance if chicago schools.

Personally i wouldnt want this but the average person seems to respond positively to this type of mentorship.

That would be Urban Prep Academies. For the last three years they have had 100% of the graduating senior class go off to four-year colleges or universities. I'm really surprised no one has looked to see if the Alabama program is actually working, it's the first question I would have asked.


Well, considering the program gives more guidance to girls and less to boys then I'd assume no.
 
2012-12-10 12:39:05 PM  

shortymac: Considering that many children from that area grow up in broken fatherless homes, that type of mentorship is probably very beneficial.


This. A responsible male role model for males lacking one completely is not the worst thing, which would be to give them no role models. Nothing wrong with teaching "be a man" if that is primarily "don't deal drugs, be responsible for your actions, don't perpetrate violence, don't verbally abuse people" etc.
 
2012-12-10 12:43:44 PM  

SkunkWerks: Please re-state. This bit is confusing in the wording, unless the narrative here is that it's society's actual conscious intent is to widen the gender role gap rather than narrow it.


The data suggests that in the last 30 years or so of addressing "social conditioning", the State of Norway has had less and less female enrollment in Science and Engineering. This is at a time where Norway has prided itself on reversing gender inequalities and attacking the "root of the problem", that is, addressing education and social conditioning, versus simply mandating enrollment, quotas, funding, etc. This policy has deduced itself to the present day where Norway lags in female enrollment behind almost all industrialized nations, including developing societies like Pakistan and India.

This is quite the paradox where Norway began liberalizing earlier than the rest of the West after ww2.

SkunkWerks: The social conditioning governing the gender gap is centuries more pervasive than 50 years or so of "progressive" or "liberal" ideology is ever going to successfully tackle.


The problem, is that if this were true, societies that excel in addressing social conditioning would be at the forefront equalizing the gender differences. But these societies tend to be the most open and liberal, and do not have structures in place that "force the outcome". Instead, each individual is encouraged to follow their own path to their choosing without outside pressures.

A quite reasonable hypothesis to entertain for this phenomena is that the issue is biological, not social.And when left to their own devices the gender differences become more pronounced, regardless of social conditioning.
 
2012-12-10 12:46:12 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: And on the few days per month girls are good at math, they have to keep on guard about attracting bears.


Reading the entire thread was worth it for this post.
 
2012-12-10 12:50:01 PM  
According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

wheresmysammich.com
WTF am I reading?
 
2012-12-10 12:55:48 PM  

Apos: Mind-boggling idiocy. Alabama is clearly vying for a Fark tag.


I always assumed they were just the "assanine" tag. Actually, I assumed the whole South was the "assanine" tag.
 
2012-12-10 01:03:26 PM  

ChuDogg: The data suggests that in the last 30 years or so of addressing "social conditioning", the State of Norway has had less and less female enrollment in Science and Engineering. This is at a time where Norway has prided itself on reversing gender inequalities and attacking the "root of the problem", that is, addressing education and social conditioning, versus simply mandating enrollment, quotas, funding, etc. This policy has deduced itself to the present day where Norway lags in female enrollment behind almost all industrialized nations, including developing societies like Pakistan and India.

This is quite the paradox where Norway began liberalizing earlier than the rest of the West after ww2.


I got this part. Norway is seemingly in a backslide when most "conventional wisdom" would suggest it should be moving "forward". I've gotten it several times, actually.

But it wasn't really a direct answer to my question here, which was whether it is, in fact, Norway's conscious intent to curb gender inequality rather than exacerbate it. The quote I pulled seemed to suggest the latter, or the wording was just odd. I'm not certain which. I'm proceeding under the idea that Norway is trying to curb gender inequality... for the moment.

ChuDogg: The problem, is that if this were true, societies that excel in addressing social conditioning would be at the forefront equalizing the gender differences. But these societies tend to be the most open and liberal,


Keeping in mind that you've self-defined Norway as such a society and also self-defined it to be a failure at that. I don't find that a very conclusive measure of anything. Interesting, but not conclusive.

The most pernicious aspect of social conditioning is it's pervasiveness. It works by and large because the individual it affects is mostly unaware of it.

ChuDogg: and do not have structures in place that "force the outcome".


I'm interested at this point in what your concept of such a structure might be. It always seemed to me that structures like EOE, Affirmative Action, actual enforcement of Sexual Harassment statutes and the like are pretty forceful structures, socially speaking- they are definitely coercive.

...whether or not they actually ultimately achieve the outcomes they set out to force is another- very debatable matter. But they definitely exist.

ChuDogg: each individual is encouraged to follow their own path to their choosing without outside pressures.


Yet again, I would contend that whether or not they are encouraged to do so, such outside pressures remain quite outstanding, and their source isn't found in "liberal structures" in society. It's found in more traditional ones which- despite all efforts to expunge them- still exist.

Again to put this in perspective:

Traditionalism has had it's roots in the last few thousand years
"Liberalism" as you're calling it has really only been a thing for the west for- at the very most- the last 200.

When exactly did Norway start this campaign to eliminate prejudice? I'm going to hazard a guess the "weight of years" isn't really a factor in favor of it.

ChuDogg: And when left to their own devices the gender differences become more pronounced, regardless of social conditioning.


Except that they were not- as I said- "left to their own devices". Not remotely.

I suppose one could argue that they had more freedom to choose, but in order to suggest that the primary influence isn't social, you need to find a way to rule out a few thousand years of lingering conditioning.


It's interesting, I'll grant. What it's far from is "conclusive", and there's an awful lot of human history being conveniently overlooked here.

One thing your study seems to say that piques my interest- you said the gap was getting wider. I'm interested to know by what ruler they were measuring that.
 
2012-12-10 01:13:34 PM  

shortymac: I'd argue that while officially Norway adopted a more feminist outlook, you don't know what parents are teaching their kids behind closed doors. Their parents and grandparents grew up in pre-feminist times and a lot of cultural stereotyping still lingers under the surface.

Lois Frankel's work shows that while parents encourage children of both sexes to work and study hard, parents unconsciously encourage their sons into "riskier" careers like CEO and stock broker while encouraging their daughters into "safe" careers like nurse and teaching.

Hell, my own parents encouraged me at a young age to be a teacher so "I could have summers off to raise my future kids." They did not do this any of my brothers, despite being very feminist while raising me.


At some point your excuses become thinner and thinner.
 
2012-12-10 01:20:39 PM  

SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: The data suggests that in the last 30 years or so of addressing "social conditioning", the State of Norway has had less and less female enrollment in Science and Engineering. This is at a time where Norway has prided itself on reversing gender inequalities and attacking the "root of the problem", that is, addressing education and social conditioning, versus simply mandating enrollment, quotas, funding, etc. This policy has deduced itself to the present day where Norway lags in female enrollment behind almost all industrialized nations, including developing societies like Pakistan and India.

This is quite the paradox where Norway began liberalizing earlier than the rest of the West after ww2.

I got this part. Norway is seemingly in a backslide when most "conventional wisdom" would suggest it should be moving "forward". I've gotten it several times, actually.

But it wasn't really a direct answer to my question here, which was whether it is, in fact, Norway's conscious intent to curb gender inequality rather than exacerbate it. The quote I pulled seemed to suggest the latter, or the wording was just odd. I'm not certain which. I'm proceeding under the idea that Norway is trying to curb gender inequality... for the moment.

ChuDogg: The problem, is that if this were true, societies that excel in addressing social conditioning would be at the forefront equalizing the gender differences. But these societies tend to be the most open and liberal,

Keeping in mind that you've self-defined Norway as such a society and also self-defined it to be a failure at that. I don't find that a very conclusive measure of anything. Interesting, but not conclusive.

The most pernicious aspect of social conditioning is it's pervasiveness. It works by and large because the individual it affects is mostly unaware of it.

ChuDogg: and do not have structures in place that "force the outcome".

I'm interested at this point in what your concept of such a structure might be. It always seemed to me that structures like EOE, Affirmative Action, actual enforcement of Sexual Harassment statutes and the like are pretty forceful structures, socially speaking- they are definitely coercive.

...whether or not they actually ultimately achieve the outcomes they set out to force is another- very debatable matter. But they definitely exist.

ChuDogg: each individual is encouraged to follow their own path to their choosing without outside pressures.

Yet again, I would contend that whether or not they are encouraged to do so, such outside pressures remain quite outstanding, and their source isn't found in "liberal structures" in society. It's found in more traditional ones which- despite all efforts to expunge them- still exist.

Again to put this in perspective:

Traditionalism has had it's roots in the last few thousand years
"Liberalism" as you're calling it has really only been a thing for the west for- at the very most- the last 200.

When exactly did Norway start this campaign to eliminate prejudice? I'm going to hazard a guess the "weight of years" isn't really a factor in favor of it.

ChuDogg: And when left to their own devices the gender differences become more pronounced, regardless of social conditioning.

Except that they were not- as I said- "left to their own devices". Not remotely.

I suppose one could argue that they had more freedom to choose, but in order to suggest that the primary influence isn't social, you need to find a way to rule out a few thousand years of lingering conditioning.


It's interesting, I'll grant. What it's far from is "conclusive", and there's an awful lot of human history being conveniently overlooked here.

One thing your study seems to say that piques my interest- you said the gap was getting wider. I'm interested to know by what ruler they were measuring that.


The guy specifically looked at female enrollment in Science and Engineering programs. There are other metrics to be sure, but in addressing gender differences this is a useful area to consider the trends that women and men are reflecting.

Our arguements have repeated several times now while you have retreated to the "30 years is not long enough" argument, ignoring that the gap widens as social conditioning to female academic performance is increasing.

I cant help but see this as a form of conginitve dissonance. Our education relies heavily on the axiom that there are no difference between the genders, and when discrepancies exist we rationalize them to coexist with our worldview.

If Norway's pattern gets reflected in the rest of the West we can continue to see women and men conform to gender stereotypes in academia, while we encourage everyone to follow their own path.

This is particularly problematic to our science and engineering programs if we cap male enrollment to female enrollment, as we are now doing. If we dont "force the outcome" to push women into these courses it will reduce our scientific capacity as a nation, at a time when our competitive edge is already decreasing to the far east.
 
2012-12-10 01:24:09 PM  

ChuDogg: Our arguements have repeated several times now while you have retreated to the "30 years is not long enough" argument, ignoring that the gap widens as social conditioning to female academic performance is increasing.


Primarily, in my case at least, because if true, it's contrary to the statistics in other countries. A search for "female enrollment engineering science Norway" turns up nothing, which makes me skeptical. I'll check out the video later, but I'd want to see his numbers.
 
2012-12-10 01:33:00 PM  

Theaetetus: ChuDogg: Our arguements have repeated several times now while you have retreated to the "30 years is not long enough" argument, ignoring that the gap widens as social conditioning to female academic performance is increasing.

Primarily, in my case at least, because if true, it's contrary to the statistics in other countries. A search for "female enrollment engineering science Norway" turns up nothing, which makes me skeptical. I'll check out the video later, but I'd want to see his numbers.


After doing a bit further digging, it looks like the video is by a comedian who did the Bullshiat-type tactic of interviewing a bunch of people and clipping up the interviews into out of context statements, and then holding them up to ridicule through the contradictions. Though amusing, it doesn't seem to have any actual data. I'd take it with a grain of salt, like many of the Bullshiat episodes.
 
2012-12-10 01:38:12 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: ChuDogg: Is this a black school? I read earlier about a school in Chicago that did this and was highly controversial. It was an all boys school and had all of that "be a man" stuff throughout the day. Thing was by the numbers the students had a 100% turn around. These were students who were the lowest of the low, in grades, behavior, criminality, etc. But the students really turned around and it had one of the highest college acceptance if chicago schools.

Personally i wouldnt want this but the average person seems to respond positively to this type of mentorship.

That would be Urban Prep Academies. For the last three years they have had 100% of the graduating senior class go off to four-year colleges or universities. I'm really surprised no one has looked to see if the Alabama program is actually working, it's the first question I would have asked.


I'm reading up on this school and it doesn't appear to be even remotely similar to the Alabama model.
 
2012-12-10 01:38:56 PM  

ChuDogg: ignoring that the gap widens as social conditioning to female academic performance is increasing.


On the contrary, that's why I've asked about the widening gap. It's the only thing that is inconsistent with my theory in any way.

You've in turn been pretty much ignoring the notion that even "liberal" societies contain some degree of traditionalism, and if history is to be trusted on the matter, quite a bit more than the latter.

ChuDogg: Our education relies heavily on the axiom that there are no difference between the genders,


That's a bold assumption. I'd think that the many CSB's provided here in the thread are more than enough to put it in question.

That said, I think our education is predicated on the surface on that ideal. What happens in practice seems to be very different.

ChuDogg: If Norway's pattern gets reflected in the rest of the West we can continue to see women and men conform to gender stereotypes in academia, while we encourage everyone to follow their own path.


You've also confused "freedom to choose" with "freedom from coercion". They aren't the same, I assure you. A beaten dog chooses to return to the owner that beat it, overwhelmingly.

This isn't a terribly sensible or logical choice. It is however, pretty unerringly predictable. Some say it's the increased impact of negative conditioning over positive conditioning, and that it might be biological. But the dog doesn't return for another beating because you gave it the freedom to choose.

Correlation, not causality.

ChuDogg: This is particularly problematic to our science and engineering programs if we cap male enrollment to female enrollment, as we are now doing. If we dont "force the outcome" to push women into these courses it will reduce our scientific capacity as a nation, at a time when our competitive edge is already decreasing to the far east.


While I think it's a tragedy that women are making a "free choice" not to participate in maths and sciences, I really doubt this is a direct result of giving them the freedom to choose, but rather the result of a lot of subtle cues- even in a liberal society- that they simply aren't cut out for those disciplines.

Forcing the outcome? It's tricky ground. For my part I tend to feel that trying to force people to do the "right" thing usually results in more harm than good, if indeed it results in anything good at all.

Or, at some point, you mistake the amount of force you exert for how successful you've been at changing people.

Take Serbia and Bosnia. Under the "iron fist" of Mother Russia, there were few, if any ethnic issues- issues which had long preceded fifty years of Russian intervention. Once that force was removed, what happened?

The practical upshot of all this is: I'm not sure the solution to pervasive coercion is blatant coercion.
 
2012-12-10 01:39:42 PM  
Whatever you think of the school's policy, one thing is for sure, the spread of cooties has dropped significantly.
 
2012-12-10 01:40:04 PM  
There's a situation that's common with just about any major social/political change, where the first generation is heavily invested in something while later generations take it for granted. For example, people in a newly democratic country will go to almost any lengths to vote, sometimes at the risk of their lives, while people in a long-standing democracy won't bother to vote if they find it even slightly inconvenient. In this recent election, people in my area were complaining that the lines at the polls were nearly half an hour long; in Sudan, people lined up patiently not just for minutes or hours but days to vote.

So on one hand you have the social forces encouraging girls to go into tech fields; on the other, you have social forces discouraging them. In the initial stages of Norway's drive for equality, the former were considerably more powerful. The people involved felt that they were doing something important, like the people lined up for hours or days to vote. As time went on, future generations didn't feel that same pressure to be trailblazers. Yeah, equality exists, so what I do isn't important. So, while the forces discouraging girls from entering tech fields were becoming weaker, the forces encouraging them to do so became weaker still. Hence the reduction in numbers.

It's the difference between "It's important so I need to do it" and "other people are already doing it; I don't have to." That initial spike can really skew the results.
 
2012-12-10 01:56:09 PM  

ChuDogg: SkunkWerks: ChuDogg: The data suggests that in the last 30 years or so of addressing "social conditioning", the State of Norway has had less and less female enrollment in Science and Engineering. This is at a time where Norway has prided itself on reversing gender inequalities and attacking the "root of the problem", that is, addressing education and social conditioning, versus simply mandating enrollment, quotas, funding, etc. This policy has deduced itself to the present day where Norway lags in female enrollment behind almost all industrialized nations, including developing societies like Pakistan and India.

This is quite the paradox where Norway began liberalizing earlier than the rest of the West after ww2.

I got this part. Norway is seemingly in a backslide when most "conventional wisdom" would suggest it should be moving "forward". I've gotten it several times, actually.

But it wasn't really a direct answer to my question here, which was whether it is, in fact, Norway's conscious intent to curb gender inequality rather than exacerbate it. The quote I pulled seemed to suggest the latter, or the wording was just odd. I'm not certain which. I'm proceeding under the idea that Norway is trying to curb gender inequality... for the moment.

ChuDogg: The problem, is that if this were true, societies that excel in addressing social conditioning would be at the forefront equalizing the gender differences. But these societies tend to be the most open and liberal,

Keeping in mind that you've self-defined Norway as such a society and also self-defined it to be a failure at that. I don't find that a very conclusive measure of anything. Interesting, but not conclusive.

The most pernicious aspect of social conditioning is it's pervasiveness. It works by and large because the individual it affects is mostly unaware of it.

ChuDogg: and do not have structures in place that "force the outcome".

I'm interested at this point in what your concept of such a structure ...


I can also offer a non-social conditioning explanation for it.

No matter how liberal the society, women still bare the brunt of childcare, at least at the very beginning.

Pregnancy is still the most dangerous situation a women can put herself through, for 9 months you're hindered physically, which can effect your work, and you have to take some time off from work to take care of your body and child. Given that educated women are more likely to breastfeed, that adds another level of dependency.

Even in the very liberal society of Norway with paid parental leave it's still detrimental to work, even if the workplace "supports" families.

Think of it as an extended medical leave, a person of either gender's work career still suffers from it, but women KNOW in advance that if they want children they'll have to experience that.
 
2012-12-10 01:57:51 PM  

SkunkWerks: Traditionalism has had it's roots in the last few thousand years


SkunkWerks: you need to find a way to rule out a few thousand years of lingering conditioning.


When dealing with a live span of 80 years or so, and cultures that vary wildly regionally, and cultures that have changed over time within decades, that repeated "thousands of years" doesn't really apply.

SkunkWerks: Traditionalism has had it's roots in the last few thousand years
"Liberalism" as you're calling it has really only been a thing for the west for- at the very most- the last 200.


Liberalism, as a concept, is about as old as civilization, because ruling bodies have always been oppressive as to what their followers can and cannot do, and those followers seek change and/or escape. Sure, it gained the title "liberalism" 200 or so years ago, but the concept of freedom is much older than that.

From the wiki on Liberty:
The first known use of the word freedom in a political context dates back to the 24th century BC, in a text describing the restoration of social and economic liberty in Lagash, a Sumerian city-state. Urukagina, the king of Lagash, established the first known legal code to protect citizens from the rich and powerful.

Sure, sure, "in the west" you said with much vagueness. It does sort of figure that as ruling bodies expanded and spread west it was shortly followed by supporters of liberty and equality, or sometimes liberty and equality minded people were on that leading expanding edge, as is the case with the US. Add to that the US is not definitive of "west".....and your statement is a bit bunk.

Comparing "thousands" of years to 200 with that vague reference is a bit intellectually dishonest. The concept is very very old(was born seconds after the first guy took charge, with the sentiment of "Why do you get to be in charge, why not me!?" to which the reply was a punch to the mouth). It has faced a tough resistance along the way, Conservative power structures came and went, but liberty steadily grew, adapting as it grew, still of it's original principles, merely refined.
 
2012-12-10 02:01:14 PM  

Fark Rye For Many Whores: According to the ACLU, the school relied on a book that teaches that boys are better than girls in math because their bodies receive daily surges of testosterone, while girls have similar skills only a few days per month when they experience increased estrogen during the menstrual cycle.

[wheresmysammich.com image 593x543]
WTF am I reading?


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-10 02:06:28 PM  

ChuDogg: Our arguements have repeated several times now while you have retreated to the "30 years is not long enough" argument, ignoring that the gap widens as social conditioning to female academic performance is increasing.


I am going to go out on a limb here, and agree with SkunkWerks on the fact that 30 years is not long enough. There are still outside pressures like grandparents and parents from the prior generations. Those are indeed social structures and they can heavily influence the outcome of those who are currently taking part in this liberalization of Norwegian society.

When the next generations come about, then perhaps we will see a regression of this widening gap that you speak of as occurring. Because, as the older generations die out, their views and prejudices tend to go with them, and when they do survive, they are less powerful and pervasive and quite often marginalized. In a few generations, we could check back in on Norway and then we can see whether or not their society conforms to gender stereotypes. Much like geology, any study involving human beings takes a long time to return any sort of reliable data.
 
2012-12-10 02:23:06 PM  

Sunrazor: When the next generations come about, then perhaps we will see a regression of this widening gap that you speak of as occurring. Because, as the older generations die out, their views and prejudices tend to go with them, and when they do survive, they are less powerful and pervasive and quite often marginalized.


That is a more succinct way of putting it.
 
2012-12-10 02:29:08 PM  

shortymac: Given that educated women are more likely to breastfeed, that adds another level of dependency.


Eh... There again I'm going to say traditionalist conditioning (which mandates that breasts are "eew") wins out here. If there's a greater likelihood, the margin isn't nearly as much as you'd think it would be.

It's a margin, just not a very significant one.

If this is meant to be a description of a structure that "forces an outcome" what outcome do you propose it enforces? I'm not sure I'm clear on this.

You seem to be suggesting that the very circumstances surrounding pregnancy cows women. That's probably the most interesting thing I've heard so far here, if it's what you mean to say.

omeganuepsilon: that repeated "thousands of years" doesn't really apply.


This is the point at which I believe the last shred of respect I have for you has fallen on the floor. And while I'm certain you don't really care about how you appear from my point of view, I thought I might at least do you the courtesy of letting you know that further efforts to rationalize with me knowing this is the basis on which you're doing it are pretty much futile and I'm going to take them as bizarre satire of some sort.

I'd have posted one of those Fry "not sure if stupid" image memes, but I thought I'd be more "intellectually honest"- as you seem to find me lacking in this regard. I'm a nice guy like that.

Carry on, if you really feel it's necessary.


Sunrazor: I am going to go out on a limb here, and agree with SkunkWerks on the fact that 30 years is not long enough. There are still outside pressures like grandparents and parents from the prior generations. Those are indeed social structures and they can heavily influence the outcome of those who are currently taking part in this liberalization of Norwegian society.


Even I'm kinda recoiling in disgust at my own proposal here, mostly because it sounds suspiciously like a cheap debate tactic- the great unknowable "pervasive influence". It comes off as some illuminati-style plot which you can never thoroughly debunk because you're invariably affected by it, and yet don't know you are.

Still, ask any social scientist about the matter- it is very, very hard to get people to see the strings that tug and pull them in different directions throughout life- and even if they are somewhat aware of them, it does little to diminish their influence.

30 years is not enough. What frustrates me is that I'm not exactly sure what really does qualify as "enough".

My best guess is you'd have to come very close to matching the amount of time it took to beat those mores and dictates into us as a society, if not exceed it.
 
2012-12-10 02:34:59 PM  

Worldwalker: There's a situation that's common with just about any major social/political change, where the first generation is heavily invested in something while later generations take it for granted. For example, people in a newly democratic country will go to almost any lengths to vote, sometimes at the risk of their lives, while people in a long-standing democracy won't bother to vote if they find it even slightly inconvenient. In this recent election, people in my area were complaining that the lines at the polls were nearly half an hour long; in Sudan, people lined up patiently not just for minutes or hours but days to vote.

So on one hand you have the social forces encouraging girls to go into tech fields; on the other, you have social forces discouraging them. In the initial stages of Norway's drive for equality, the former were considerably more powerful. The people involved felt that they were doing something important, like the people lined up for hours or days to vote. As time went on, future generations didn't feel that same pressure to be trailblazers. Yeah, equality exists, so what I do isn't important. So, while the forces discouraging girls from entering tech fields were becoming weaker, the forces encouraging them to do so became weaker still. Hence the reduction in numbers.

It's the difference between "It's important so I need to do it" and "other people are already doing it; I don't have to." That initial spike can really skew the results.


I also liked this post. Reminds me a bit of our "initial push" to get a man on the moon, and how that relates to where we are now in terms of our space program.

Again, I feel the pathology of gender bias extends a lot further than "making the mistake of giving people a choice in the matter".
 
2012-12-10 02:50:35 PM  

Worldwalker: There's a situation that's common with just about any major social/political change, where the first generation is heavily invested in something while later generations take it for granted. For example, people in a newly democratic country will go to almost any lengths to vote, sometimes at the risk of their lives, while people in a long-standing democracy won't bother to vote if they find it even slightly inconvenient. In this recent election, people in my area were complaining that the lines at the polls were nearly half an hour long; in Sudan, people lined up patiently not just for minutes or hours but days to vote.

So on one hand you have the social forces encouraging girls to go into tech fields; on the other, you have social forces discouraging them. In the initial stages of Norway's drive for equality, the former were considerably more powerful. The people involved felt that they were doing something important, like the people lined up for hours or days to vote. As time went on, future generations didn't feel that same pressure to be trailblazers. Yeah, equality exists, so what I do isn't important. So, while the forces discouraging girls from entering tech fields were becoming weaker, the forces encouraging them to do so became weaker still. Hence the reduction in numbers.

It's the difference between "It's important so I need to do it" and "other people are already doing it; I don't have to." That initial spike can really skew the results.


In other words:

i3.kym-cdn.com 

/had a better one in mind but couldn't find it on the webz
 
2012-12-10 02:56:24 PM  

Worldwalker: A very good point.

It's the same sort of thing that leads to reporters saying "X substance causes cancer in mice, therefore it must be a human carcinogen." The popular assumption is that a bunch of healthy mice were fed normal doses of the substance in question, and more of them developed cancer. Actually, that's not the case; all else aside, maintaining an animal colony large enough to see statistically significant effects from a test like that would be prohibitively expensive. Instead, if they want to test if X causes, say, liver cancer, they start with a strain of mice prone to developing liver tumors (maybe one of the arf-null variants), feed a bunch of them massive doses of the substance in question, and see if they develop more liver tumors than a control group. The problem with this is that they've done the equivalent of feeding a group of diabetics plates full of sugar cookies. The data generated is true for that specific genetically susceptible population, and might or might not be applicable to a genetically normal population. There's no way to tell from that data alone.

Same thing here: The effects of testosterone on people who are in some way not part of the normal population (hypogonadal men, in this case) may have nothing whatsoever to do with that normal population, any more than the fact that some people could die from eating a peanut means that peanuts are a toxin to everyone. It may open an avenue of research, and point to something worth investigating, but it doesn't "prove" anything. The "X causes cancer! Doom! Gloom!" stories make me want to slap the fool writing them.


Really well put. I could not have said it better myself... While I cannot really blame journalists for misunderstanding the research they have to report on,--after all, they are not experts on the topic-- It is guys like this author of this book this school district used that I do. I do expect that someone who calls themselves an "expert" in the field to actually be an expert on the topic... This guy has done nothing but cherry pick a few pieces of research, where some of the ideas fit to what he thinks should be right. Heck, I visited this guy's homepage, and clicked on the link "research," which goes directly to a list of citations, which he is not listed in. Turns out it is only a list of references that he has used in his book. I find the whole setup to be a little purposefully misleading. End of the story is this guy just wants to make some money, and nothing more.
 
2012-12-10 02:59:55 PM  

kingoomieiii: GAT_00: and I'm all with the ACLU here. What a crock of shiat.

I dunno, man. When I get a surge of testosterone I get REAL good at math.


I'm fantastic at math right after I masturbate.
 
2012-12-10 03:01:50 PM  
So, Penn and Teller's "Bullshiat" is the source of the Norway study?

It's a show I actually find entertaining. I just don't know if I'd call it an "unbiased source" or an "academic benchmark" of any kind.
 
2012-12-10 03:16:07 PM  
 
2012-12-10 03:29:49 PM  
Statistics show that academics in both boys and girls are much improved if separated, but of course if this is going on in Alabama we have to call them rednecks, morons, and/or idiots. If this was going on in New York it would be cutting edge academics. Academics are improved to the point I think most schools should probably do this, but apparently we have to argue with scientific studies.
 
2012-12-10 03:31:09 PM  

BooCollins: Statistics show that academics in both boys and girls are much improved if separated


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-10 03:45:12 PM  

SkunkWerks: Meanwhile in Clay County...

"People like the Rev. Bruce Willis..."


whoa! that has to be the best religion ever.
/ isn't there a movie where he's an assassin who dresses as a priest? Why oh why can I not find a screen shot?
 
2012-12-10 03:46:01 PM  

SkunkWerks: omeganuepsilon: that repeated "thousands of years" doesn't really apply.

This is the point at which I believe the last shred of respect I have for you has fallen on the floor



And then you turn around with:

SkunkWerks: Even I'm kinda recoiling in disgust at my own proposal here, mostly because it sounds suspiciously like a cheap debate tactic- the great unknowable "pervasive influence". It comes off as some illuminati-style plot which you can never thoroughly debunk because you're invariably affected by it, and yet don't know you are.

Still, ask any social scientist about the matter- it is very, very hard to get people to see the strings that tug and pull them in different directions throughout life- and even if they are somewhat aware of them, it does little to diminish their influence.

30 years is not enough. What frustrates me is that I'm not exactly sure what really does qualify as "enough".

My best guess is you'd have to come very close to matching the amount of time it took to beat those mores and dictates into us as a society, if not exceed it.




In the same post...
Cute.

People are more powerful than you(and your generic social scientists) give them credit for. In less than 50 years much of your "thousands" of years of influence is gone, less than 100 and women and blacks are less oppressed than ever before, and well on the way to true equality(They have it under the law mostly). LGBT haven't gotten every right they want yet, but they're pretty damn close, and good for them.

But keep guessing, maybe that's why you're so frustrated, and sound like a cheap debate tactic. You'll hit something correct sooner or later.
 
2012-12-10 03:54:30 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Not only the math thing - the boys also get daily exercise while the girls are kept quiet. How the fark does anyone get the idea that girls don't need exercise?!

I mean, that's stupid even for Alabama.


In all fairness, the girls spend their time in sammich making class.
 
2012-12-10 06:11:25 PM  

serial_crusher: / isn't there a movie where he's an assassin who dresses as a priest?


Bruce Willis as an assassin... the Jackal?
 
2012-12-10 06:24:27 PM  

Bontesla: Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?

The difference begins at middle school. Either female students get dumber or we systematically give the advantage to male students. Considering many studies support the latter, I'm going with that.


I think the simple terminology is one of the things that turns people off....why is it always framed as some kind of "systemic advantage" for males? Which is ALWAYS assumed, and yet I've never seen anyone who was able to actually describe the nature of these advantages in a way that explained the pervasive outcomes. Now in highly conservative areas, there have always been and still are distinct differences in the way boys and girls are treated. My SO spent 1 year of high school in a small town in Missouri 20 years ago, where a teacher (one, single, religious fundy teacher)actually told her that she didn't need to study math or science because she was a girl....but I never once saw such behavior in my 14 years of school in California. And yet still, boys were on average more enthusiastic about math and science than girls. Maybe it's pressure from their families and friends, but all the schools I went to strongly encouraged girls to participate in STEM classes, but had only mixed success.

I don't personally believe in large differences by nature alone, save the obvious biological differences...certainly not in intelligence or the basic ability to learn certain subjects. But I have noticed that around middle-school age, many girls become very ambivalent about school, particularly the math and science classes, and that even the ones who excel at school in general often do better in language classes, history, arts, and the softer and less math-intensive sciences. They also tend to be much more social than boys, and often seem to get bored more easily in dry subjects.

These observations may well still be explainable as a function of social interaction and not biology. But it may be a social cause that is brought on by families and the choices of the girls themselves, and not by any systemic "privileging" of males in school, or ignorant stereotypes like the ones in the article. All the girls I knew who were actually interested in science did quite well, but the rates of interest were lower across the board, and I can't identify a single way in which males were in any real sense given advantages that weren't available to all. I think it's more likely that girls are being hamstrung by the social habits of their own families and friends, being convinced that they don't need the opportunities that are readily available, not that boys are being somehow elevated or catered to, or even encouraged to study more by teachers or the wider society. All the schools I went to did their best to make sure EVERYONE could gain from what was offered.
 
2012-12-10 06:45:24 PM  

SkunkWerks: Fast Moon: Maybe it has to do with the gender stereotyping illustrated in this article? "We think girls are bad at math, so let's just not teach it to them and let them bake cookies instead."

And it's not just schooling.

Again, for an interesting example of this, read up on the Monty Hall Problem.

Basically put: Male Mathematicians vs. female Guinness Book's Highest IQ Score entry.

Sex discrimination in Academics hardly ends at graduation.


Uh, where exactly was the "sex discrimination" in that story? It sounds like a lot of people simply weren't as familiar with the highly counter-intuitive concepts of conditional probability involved, and made the idea too simple. I think the facts that it was a self-proclaimed "genius" who writes a somewhat amusing column for a crappy Sunday supplement, and that it was a very counter-intuitive problem that most people, even math teachers, weren't familiar with, had more to do with the media explosion than the fact it was "male mathematicians" VS. "Female highest IQ".

But you go ahead and keep flogging your boogeyman.
 
2012-12-10 06:53:03 PM  

Canned Tamales: Bontesla: Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?

The difference begins at middle school. Either female students get dumber or we systematically give the advantage to male students. Considering many studies support the latter, I'm going with that.

I think the simple terminology is one of the things that turns people off....why is it always framed as some kind of "systemic advantage" for males? Which is ALWAYS assumed, and yet I've never seen anyone who was able to actually describe the nature of these advantages in a way that explained the pervasive outcomes. Now in highly conservative areas, there have always been and still are distinct differences in the way boys and girls are treated. My SO spent 1 year of high school in a small town in Missouri 20 years ago, where a teacher (one, single, religious fundy teacher)actually told her that she didn't need to study math or science because she was a girl....but I never once saw such behavior in my 14 years of school in California. And yet still, boys were on average more enthusiastic about math and science than girls. Maybe it's pressure from their families and friends, but all the schools I went to strongly encouraged girls to participate in STEM classes, but had only mixed success.

I don't personally believe in large differences by nature alone, save the obvious biological dif ...


The problem with bias is that we're not always aware of it. Do you know that there are numerous studies that have looked into bias? Incredibly fascinating stuff.

For example - teachers tend to be more generous in grading with some students and harsher on other students if that teacher sees the student names. This has been documented so many times that many new education programs will "teach around" this bias by suggesting teachers assign ID numbers or bend the test papers in such a way as to obscure the name.

This bias even occurs when the teacher doesn't know the student at all. Professors tend to give smart-sounding names better grades over socially-popular sounding names.

Naturally, this is supported by the studies that examine gender bias in "hard science" disciplines. For example - teachers tend to call on male students for answers in math and science. Teachers tend to curve their grading scales for male students when it comes to math and science but the reverse occurs on reading and language.

Social scientists have even documented the amount of time a teacher will devote to explaining things and have noticed a strong trend along gender lines.

You may not see or be aware of the systematic advantages - but they're well documented.
 
2012-12-10 07:53:42 PM  

SkunkWerks: omeganuepsilon: It's a viscous cycle, and we can't do anything about it if we don't identify it.

So, we've never identified this before... ever?

Forgive me for re-iterating things I've already said, but I rather thought this was the point of my "pedantry" on the nature of "shocking allegories regarding ideological hypocrisy" and how they're really a lot more common, and a whole hell of a lot less shocking than you'd think they are.

Moreover, they aren't shocking for the reasons you're suggesting they are.

omeganuepsilon: Being pedantic over "shocking" "paradox" whever. You do find it interesting, as do we, so really, stop being confrontational about how people describe their interest.

If re-treading "shock" recursively and feigning empirical interest by mis-attributing such "alarming" phenomenon so such overly-simplified criteria as "political worldview" is your preferred way of experiencing the world, don't let me stop you (indeed, I can't). By all means. Continue.

shortymac: I'd argue that while officially Norway adopted a more feminist outlook, you don't know what parents are teaching their kids behind closed doors. Their parents and grandparents grew up in pre-feminist times and a lot of cultural stereotyping still lingers under the surface.

Lois Frankel's work shows that while parents encourage children of both sexes to work and study hard, parents unconsciously encourage their sons into "riskier" careers like CEO and stock broker while encouraging their daughters into "safe" careers like nurse and teaching.

Hell, my own parents encouraged me at a young age to be a teacher so "I could have summers off to raise my future kids." They did not do this any of my brothers, despite being very feminist while raising me.

Oh hey, someone gets it. Hi there.

Been saying this for a while. "ZOMG Norway! It has turned liberal! Yet it still ascribes to centuries worth of social conditioning! Le shock and horror!"


You keep blathering on with your righteous bullshiat, but have yet to address the point....the implied paradox, is that a society that was largely already ahead of more conservative societies has gone BACK to being less egalitarian in the workplace, DESPITE years of programs and decades of less conservative policies.

So, how do you propose that gender stereotypes INCREASED in a time period when there were no official policies helping that increase along, and when parenting was, as far as anyone knows, at least as liberal as it was in the past? How do the remnants of older stereotypes resurface on such a large scale with nobody really enforcing them, to the point where more conservative societies have more equal outcomes?

Your "explanation" explains nothing, but relies on guesses about the existence of stereotypes that don't seem to apply to the situation in question....personally, I think you're engaging in the very same behavior that you and Theatus were criticizing earlier in the thread. If it doesn't fit your preconceived victim-religion worldview, it can't be real...so you get to make up pat explanations rather than address the facts at hand....of course, nobody else gets to do that.

/it's pretty transparent, really.
 
2012-12-10 08:30:14 PM  

ChuDogg: SkunkWerks: Please re-state. This bit is confusing in the wording, unless the narrative here is that it's society's actual conscious intent is to widen the gender role gap rather than narrow it.

The data suggests that in the last 30 years or so of addressing "social conditioning", the State of Norway has had less and less female enrollment in Science and Engineering. This is at a time where Norway has prided itself on reversing gender inequalities and attacking the "root of the problem", that is, addressing education and social conditioning, versus simply mandating enrollment, quotas, funding, etc. This policy has deduced itself to the present day where Norway lags in female enrollment behind almost all industrialized nations, including developing societies like Pakistan and India.

This is quite the paradox where Norway began liberalizing earlier than the rest of the West after ww2.

SkunkWerks: The social conditioning governing the gender gap is centuries more pervasive than 50 years or so of "progressive" or "liberal" ideology is ever going to successfully tackle.

The problem, is that if this were true, societies that excel in addressing social conditioning would be at the forefront equalizing the gender differences. But these societies tend to be the most open and liberal, and do not have structures in place that "force the outcome". Instead, each individual is encouraged to follow their own path to their choosing without outside pressures.

A quite reasonable hypothesis to entertain for this phenomena is that the issue is biological, not social.And when left to their own devices the gender differences become more pronounced, regardless of social conditioning.


I think skunkwerks has pretty much decided to not address the issue in any meaningful way, but seems quite content to fall back on the "existing cultural stereotypes not being eradicated" trope despite the fact that it doesn't seem to fit in this case. Where I come from, we call that a dogma, but hey, whatever.

I find it a pretty interesting phenomenon though. I don't mind people speculating- after all, you have to have some imagination to figure anything out. My own over-simple half-guess would be to look at it through a more transactional lens.

In a society where many inequalities have been dealt with well enough to insure a basic quality of life, many people, both men and women, will simply do whatever is both easier and yet still fulfilling. For many women, that will be raising a family, and getting to spend a lot of time with their family.
There is nothing in my speculation that supposes any biological differences other than the simple fact that women have the babies, like it or not. There is nothing that supposes that women are inferior in learning, business, or that they are lazy or un-ambitious compared to men. There is also nothing in my speculation that pre-supposes enormous parental or social stereotypes against the available evidence and decades of social policy. I just think that given the choice of juggling a career and raising a family, or having a decent welfare state and basic equality in lower-paid jobs, many women will choose to raise families rather than bust their asses for 30 years trying to have it all. If they have a good marriage and family income, bonus. If the marriage goes south, there is still enough of a welfare state and enough job opportunity for women so that they can still live a decent life.

If the biological roles were reversed, I bet many men would forgo the extra decade of education and a fancy career as well, and just enjoy their lives and families. It doesn't have to be hard-wiring of gender differences, and it doesn't have to be cultural stereotypes encouraging women to forgo careers...it could just be completely rational individual decisions made by women in their particular circumstances, and maybe they have no physical, emotional, or financial need to live up to any hopes or expectations that other people place on them individually or their gender as a whole.
 
2012-12-10 11:46:49 PM  

swingerofbirches: I'm an XY male with idiopathic secondary hypogonadism (basically a pituitary issue causes me to have low testosterone and they don't know why) and I have similar testosterone levels to an XX friend of mine who has PCOS. I went through two years of calculus in high school (I forget what they called it, AB, BC, soemthing like that), and did fine with testosterone levels that I assume were low back then as well.


Can you shed some light on how your doctors figured out it was pituitary-related? I've also got unexplained hypogonadism, but all of my other hormone levels were fine. Two GP's and two endocrinologists looked at my lab reports and drew a blank. I'd really be grateful for your story.
 
2012-12-11 12:11:41 AM  

Stibium: swingerofbirches: I'm an XY male with idiopathic secondary hypogonadism (basically a pituitary issue causes me to have low testosterone and they don't know why) and I have similar testosterone levels to an XX friend of mine who has PCOS. I went through two years of calculus in high school (I forget what they called it, AB, BC, soemthing like that), and did fine with testosterone levels that I assume were low back then as well.

Can you shed some light on how your doctors figured out it was pituitary-related? I've also got unexplained hypogonadism, but all of my other hormone levels were fine. Two GP's and two endocrinologists looked at my lab reports and drew a blank. I'd really be grateful for your story.



Well, it was sort of a process of elimination, and I'm sort of filling in the blanks of things they haven't told me. I'm the one who sort of asked for all these tests to begin with. My tests for free and total testosterone were both low. The endocrinologist then did a test to see if the hormones the pituitary sends out were working correctly, and they were very low (these were called somethign like FSH and something else). I had a testicular ultrasound (which they didn't want to do) but I asked for because I have had several testicular cysts since childhood, but they said everything was normal and of normal size. The last test I had done was for Kleinfelter's which is a genetic test to see if you are XXY vs. XY. I turned out to be XY, so that was not the cause either.

So, basically their diagnosis was based on the fact that my testicles seem to work normally and are producing some testosterone but my pituitary gland is not sending out the signal to make testosterone in high enough quantiies.

The one thing my endocrinologist told me is that she had seen this in patients who are chronically ill to the point they are hospitalized because the body will prioritize that it needs to heal before procreating, and given that I have been on three psychiatric drugs with bad side effects for over half my life and live a very sedentary lifestyle I'm not sure if she realized when I told her how chronically ill I am. I tried to convince her, but I don't think she believed how sedentary I actually am and how little stamina I have. So maybe it's that.

The other thing they sometimes do is a head MRI to check for a pituitary tumor. Since I had had a head MRI in the last two years, they wouldn't repeat it and looked at my last one instead. The MRI didn't show a tumor, but I've read they are sometimes too small to show up, plus the report said there was motion blur on the MRI, which makes sense given that I was having a panic attack in the MRI machine. That MRI also didn't use contrast.

So, when I say that I have idiopathic secondary hypogonadism, I guess I should clarify that I have self-diagnosed myself to some degree. I don't think my doctors would disagree with me, it's just that they weren't interested to really say anything. You have to understand that at no point was any doctor interested in doing this testing. I sort of string them along by asking for a test, and then making an appointment to get the results, and then based on the results saying, "OK and this could mean? And what should we do next?" If it weren't for that, I wouldn't know any of this. Eventually stopped looking for answers when they didn't want to do another MRI.

I initially asked for the testosterone test because of low energy, night sweats, and achiness, plus I've never had a clear sexual identity--I don't have a drive toward sex.

The endocrinologist gave me a script for testosterone, but I haven't taken it because it seems like a lifelong commitment (I'm 30), and it makes your body stop producing its own testosterone and can shrink the testes. I've been investigating a medication called Clomid that causes the body to produce its own testosterone, but my doctors aren't too interested in considering alternatives.

I'm also sort of doing a wait and see approach. I am not a very healthy person in general. I'm very sedentary and somewhat overweight. I'm slowly going off of my pysch meds which should also improve overall health (esp since Seroquel raises my blood sugar, and the others, Ativan and Paxil, are bad stuff as well). Also, I got my GP to recheck my testosterone once since the initial diagnosis and it was double what it was before. It was 224, and I think the time before it had been like 113 (very, very low).

224 still isn't normal. But ideally I'd be interested to have it tested even more often to see how it varies and why.

I've also recently been reading about how sexual stimulus CAUSES testosterone production. I used to always hear that lack of drive was related to having low testosterone.

So, in short, I'm not doing anything much about it, but I've got a lot of fish to fry health and life-wise, and this topic is one that's generally on my backburner.

Hope that helped even a little!

You mentioned that all your other hormone levels, which I'm guessing probably includes the tests that check the signals the pituitary gland sends out, but if not, you may want to ask about that. Also the Klinefelter test is easy--just a blood test. It was really cool actually to see, they sent back a paper with what I believe were photographs (or maybe drawings) of my chromosomes. I couldn't believe those were normal. I was fully expecting to be XXY.

Anyhow, best of luck and health!
 
2012-12-11 08:14:08 AM  
well good news users of Androgel 1.0 there's now Androgel 1.62
 
2012-12-11 10:19:33 AM  

Canned Tamales: Bontesla: Big Ramifications: Metalithic: IIRC the book cites the absurdly lopsided ratio of male:female mathematics doctorates as proof.

So what exactly are you saying? That a predominance of male mathematics postgraduates is proof that testosterone makes you a math wiz?
~
~
Firstly, I'm asking why there is a difference. Not saying why there is a difference [albeit in a smartass way - try not to get too butt hurt].

Secondly, if you read between the lines, clearly I'm asking: "OK, so it's not testosterone. Great. I'm happy for youse all. So why is there a difference? Coz there clearly is a difference by the time you get to leet university level mathematicians.

Got any ideas, chuckles?

The difference begins at middle school. Either female students get dumber or we systematically give the advantage to male students. Considering many studies support the latter, I'm going with that.

I think the simple terminology is one of the things that turns people off....why is it always framed as some kind of "systemic advantage" for males? Which is ALWAYS assumed, and yet I've never seen anyone who was able to actually describe the nature of these advantages in a way that explained the pervasive outcomes. Now in highly conservative areas, there have always been and still are distinct differences in the way boys and girls are treated. My SO spent 1 year of high school in a small town in Missouri 20 years ago, where a teacher (one, single, religious fundy teacher)actually told her that she didn't need to study math or science because she was a girl....but I never once saw such behavior in my 14 years of school in California. And yet still, boys were on average more enthusiastic about math and science than girls. Maybe it's pressure from their families and friends, but all the schools I went to strongly encouraged girls to participate in STEM classes, but had only mixed success.

I don't personally believe in large differences by nature alone, save the obvious biological dif ...


I've seen the same thing in boys, it's called being a stupid teenager and trying to fit "in" instead of focusing on studies.

God if I had a dollar for every smart teen-aged male I knew who decided to not do any and just coast on their test scores I'd be rich.

Homework cuts into call of duty time bro! Who cares if I barely pass with D's, look at my gamerscore!
 
2012-12-11 10:33:27 AM  

Canned Tamales: SkunkWerks: omeganuepsilon: It's a viscous cycle, and we can't do anything about it if we don't identify it.

So, we've never identified this before... ever?

Forgive me for re-iterating things I've already said, but I rather thought this was the point of my "pedantry" on the nature of "shocking allegories regarding ideological hypocrisy" and how they're really a lot more common, and a whole hell of a lot less shocking than you'd think they are.

Moreover, they aren't shocking for the reasons you're suggesting they are.

omeganuepsilon: Being pedantic over "shocking" "paradox" whever. You do find it interesting, as do we, so really, stop being confrontational about how people describe their interest.

If re-treading "shock" recursively and feigning empirical interest by mis-attributing such "alarming" phenomenon so such overly-simplified criteria as "political worldview" is your preferred way of experiencing the world, don't let me stop you (indeed, I can't). By all means. Continue.

shortymac: I'd argue that while officially Norway adopted a more feminist outlook, you don't know what parents are teaching their kids behind closed doors. Their parents and grandparents grew up in pre-feminist times and a lot of cultural stereotyping still lingers under the surface.

Lois Frankel's work shows that while parents encourage children of both sexes to work and study hard, parents unconsciously encourage their sons into "riskier" careers like CEO and stock broker while encouraging their daughters into "safe" careers like nurse and teaching.

Hell, my own parents encouraged me at a young age to be a teacher so "I could have summers off to raise my future kids." They did not do this any of my brothers, despite being very feminist while raising me.

Oh hey, someone gets it. Hi there.

Been saying this for a while. "ZOMG Norway! It has turned liberal! Yet it still ascribes to centuries worth of social conditioning! Le shock and horror!"

You keep blathering on with your r ...


You still haven't address by non-social conditioning hypothesis regarding the physical demands of childbearing or another farker's suggest of the "initial push" skewing results in the long-term.
 
2012-12-11 10:40:43 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: well good news users of Androgel 1.0 there's now Androgel 1.62


Fark Androgel, just like Hormone Replacement Therapy there's no real evidence that it works outside of some limited circumstances.

My Dad got put on that shiat when I was in High School and suffered major roid rage. High School was difficult enough and then I had to worry about what mood my Father was in when I was coming home.
 
2012-12-11 10:41:31 AM  

shortymac: Homework cuts into call of duty time bro! Who cares if I barely pass with D's, look at my kill/death ratio!


FTFY

/though there are schlubs who care about gamerscore
 
2012-12-11 11:04:18 AM  

shortymac: Jon iz teh kewl: well good news users of Androgel 1.0 there's now Androgel 1.62

Fark Androgel, just like Hormone Replacement Therapy there's no real evidence that it works outside of some limited circumstances.

My Dad got put on that shiat when I was in High School and suffered major roid rage. High School was difficult enough and then I had to worry about what mood my Father was in when I was coming home.


there's natural ways to increase testosterone. like Longjack.
 
2012-12-11 12:59:23 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: shortymac: Jon iz teh kewl: well good news users of Androgel 1.0 there's now Androgel 1.62

Fark Androgel, just like Hormone Replacement Therapy there's no real evidence that it works outside of some limited circumstances.

My Dad got put on that shiat when I was in High School and suffered major roid rage. High School was difficult enough and then I had to worry about what mood my Father was in when I was coming home.

there's natural ways to increase testosterone. like Longjack.


He doesn't need it... the doctor put him on it because he was old (like the HRT for chicks).
 
2012-12-11 05:22:42 PM  

Bontesla: Old enough to know better: I don't know which is worse. Alabama, or the bastards in the comments section attacking the article writer.

There's a comment section?
Goddammitsomuch, now I'm going to be late for work.


languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu


HindiDiscoMonster: Science tells us that Males tend to think more with the left hemisphere of the brain (The logical side, less emotion, etc), and the Female of our species tends to think more in the right hemisphere (The emotional side, less logic).


Your understanding of what science tells us is wrong, or at the very least, woefully incomplete.
Aside from your characterization of one side of the brain as "emotional" being somewhat incorrect (the right brain is more associated with creativity and abstraction than emotionality, which is mostly down in the limbic lobe), the entire idea is far too oversimplified to make pronouncements like this. Neither side has a monopoly on logic, they simply use different types of logic (for instance, visual vs. procedural). Both halves of the brain are used for a great many things that are, by left/right theory, attributed to one side or the other. Language, which is usually associated with the left hemisphere, still relies on the right brain for judging things like intonation or emphasis. Logic is dealt with by both halves of the brain; math problems are done best when operated on by BOTH hemispheres, and other puzzles may invoke the processing of either or both hemispheres depending on the method of solution. This dichotomous "women use one side and men use the other side, and that's why we're good at different stuff" argument is just simplistic nonsense.
 
Displayed 368 of 368 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report