Comments on: Women read more than men? http://mendicantbug.com/2007/09/21/women-read-more-than-men/ Wanderings into computational linguistics, science, social media and life... Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:40:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Donna Adams http://mendicantbug.com/2007/09/21/women-read-more-than-men/#comment-93 Donna Adams Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:41:04 +0000 http://mendicantbug.com/2007/09/21/women-read-more-than-men/#comment-93 Anything you can do, I can do better. 'Nuff said. Anything you can do, I can do better. ‘Nuff said.

]]> By: Jason Adams http://mendicantbug.com/2007/09/21/women-read-more-than-men/#comment-92 Jason Adams Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:46:44 +0000 http://mendicantbug.com/2007/09/21/women-read-more-than-men/#comment-92 Yes, many excellent points. The whole debate is probably a dangerous and stupid one to be having. Whenever we look at <i>men do this better</i> or <i>women do this better</i>, all it serves to do is discourage someone from trying. What bothers me in things like this NPR article is that it's hypocritical to say "women are better at this biologically" whereas the "men are better at this biologically" argument is taboo. Likewise, we are so caught up in the science (myself included) that we ignore the very important social benefit we gain from not knowing: people are free to discover for themselves what they are interested in and good at. And the National Academies report is even worse because by stacking the deck so heavily in favor of one side, it casts serious doubt on its conclusions. Maybe the science behind it was good, but it seems like an ethical line was crossed. Yes, many excellent points. The whole debate is probably a dangerous and stupid one to be having. Whenever we look at men do this better or women do this better, all it serves to do is discourage someone from trying. What bothers me in things like this NPR article is that it’s hypocritical to say “women are better at this biologically” whereas the “men are better at this biologically” argument is taboo. Likewise, we are so caught up in the science (myself included) that we ignore the very important social benefit we gain from not knowing: people are free to discover for themselves what they are interested in and good at. And the National Academies report is even worse because by stacking the deck so heavily in favor of one side, it casts serious doubt on its conclusions. Maybe the science behind it was good, but it seems like an ethical line was crossed.

]]> By: Melinda Weathers http://mendicantbug.com/2007/09/21/women-read-more-than-men/#comment-91 Melinda Weathers Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:26:46 +0000 http://mendicantbug.com/2007/09/21/women-read-more-than-men/#comment-91 Interesting post. Personally, I have always been very good at math. I think I had the top grades or at least a tie for the top grades in high school math, I was 10th in the state math competition and wound up on the state team, I did old AP Calc exams for fun (I think I did maybe 10 years worth of them), I graduated with highest honors in Mechanical Engineering. So math was by far my favorite subject in high school, and it probably tied with programming in college. And it always came easy for me. So if someone were to say to me, "you're a woman, so your brain doesn't handle math well, maybe you should be an English major," I would be pretty mad. But maybe if they convinced me of that when I was young enough, I would never have signed up for advanced math when I was young, and then I would have lost interest in it before I was even considering where to go to college. So it would have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. I definitely think that this is happening to a lot of women now -- they are not supposed to understand math, because women "aren't good at it", and math is "nerdy" so they convince themselves that they in fact don't understand it. And then they don't do well. And not only that, but if it that viewpoint were supported by "legitimate" scientific research, would women be discouraged from going into engineering fields (like they used to be and probably still are somewhat) because of it? Would women be looked over on job offers and promotions because of it? I mean, we are just starting to admit that women <i>can</i> do these things, but I think having actual scientific backing that they aren't as good would set us way back. And anyways, this is all based on averages, so who really cares if this is true on average? What if it's true for 60% of women? Jeez, that leaves a lot of women that might want to pursue engineering that will be discouraged because of the "facts". And that 60% never would have wound up in engineering anyways, so my theory is that maybe those who are interested in math and engineering do not necessarily have a biological disadvantage. Of course, I haven't seen the research. I would just think that maybe, say, the average of men has a higher math potential than the average of women. But if that is the case, that in no way means that any given man will have higher math potential than any given woman. You can make numbers tell you anything you want, really, so personally I don't think there is a "real answer" to this question that is meaningful. So I am all for it if the scientists do not come down on the side that is harmful to us engineer gals. Interesting post. Personally, I have always been very good at math. I think I had the top grades or at least a tie for the top grades in high school math, I was 10th in the state math competition and wound up on the state team, I did old AP Calc exams for fun (I think I did maybe 10 years worth of them), I graduated with highest honors in Mechanical Engineering. So math was by far my favorite subject in high school, and it probably tied with programming in college. And it always came easy for me.

So if someone were to say to me, “you’re a woman, so your brain doesn’t handle math well, maybe you should be an English major,” I would be pretty mad. But maybe if they convinced me of that when I was young enough, I would never have signed up for advanced math when I was young, and then I would have lost interest in it before I was even considering where to go to college. So it would have been a self-fulfilling prophecy. I definitely think that this is happening to a lot of women now — they are not supposed to understand math, because women “aren’t good at it”, and math is “nerdy” so they convince themselves that they in fact don’t understand it. And then they don’t do well.

And not only that, but if it that viewpoint were supported by “legitimate” scientific research, would women be discouraged from going into engineering fields (like they used to be and probably still are somewhat) because of it? Would women be looked over on job offers and promotions because of it? I mean, we are just starting to admit that women can do these things, but I think having actual scientific backing that they aren’t as good would set us way back.

And anyways, this is all based on averages, so who really cares if this is true on average? What if it’s true for 60% of women? Jeez, that leaves a lot of women that might want to pursue engineering that will be discouraged because of the “facts”. And that 60% never would have wound up in engineering anyways, so my theory is that maybe those who are interested in math and engineering do not necessarily have a biological disadvantage. Of course, I haven’t seen the research. I would just think that maybe, say, the average of men has a higher math potential than the average of women. But if that is the case, that in no way means that any given man will have higher math potential than any given woman.

You can make numbers tell you anything you want, really, so personally I don’t think there is a “real answer” to this question that is meaningful. So I am all for it if the scientists do not come down on the side that is harmful to us engineer gals.

]]>