6 ms·

I’m not sure that’s a fair representation of mainstream feminism (“They stand upon the claim that women are totally equal [in the sense of ‘the same’] to men”).

I’m not sure that’s a fair representation of mainstream feminism (“They stand upon the claim that women are totally equal [in the sense of ‘the same’] to men”). Obviously, biology differs between the sexes. It’s not at all controversial, under the umbrella of feminism and gender studies, to explore the influence of brain chemistry in the assignment and acceptance of gender roles. Few will dispute that hormones affect the expression of, say, aggression and empathy, on average characteristic of men and women respectively. The more pressing and socially current matter is how these differences (rooted in biology or not) are respected or disrespected by institutions, including the social institutions of our prevailing cultural norms. For example: is it fair to demand that female scientists jockey for position in academia as ruthlessly as male scientists are accustomed to doing? Would it not benefit us if our scientific institutions were more accepting of “non-masculine” approaches to research, however those might be defined? In short, the argument is for accepting diversity, not blindly insisting on exact sameness between genders. That’s also why feminists will argue there’s no such thing as the “truly unbiased test” you seek: testing, by attempting to quantify the qualitative (scientific aptitude), will naturally privilege the testmaker’s perspective to the exclusion of alternatives. I think there’s room to argue that science would benefit from encouraging a diversity of perspectives.

sliverstorm 16y ago
I believe the difficulty is this particular topic is discussing ability rather than characteristic. Even when they acknowledge that there are differences in disposition, character, etc, no feminist I've met has been willing to entertain the idea that either gender might be better at (more able to do) something than the other (even though they are undoubtedly better at giving birth than men! :). I think the discussion usually gets hung up on a miscommunication though- they assume I am asking them to consider it is impossible for all women to do a certain task, when the question is only ever, is it possible one gender (not even necessarily males) might have greater potential at something. This is a valid question, no argument here. How does one address diversity in a field whose first concerns are (or should be, damnit) results and/or answers? IMHO you get answers/results, I don't give a darn who or what you are- you could be a squirrel for all I care. By the same token, if you don't, I'm not going to give you preferential treatment just because you are diverse. Though, I realize this is a very black and white position that probably fails to take into account some important realities.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  IMHO you get answers/results, I don't give a darn who or what you are You say this. And many people say it as well. But most people don't appear to really believe this. To give one example: statistically speaking, women are more rational when it comes to making risk-reward assessments than men. Men are more likely to make irrational choices because they systematically discount quantifiable risk. If our institutions were rational, that would suggest that women would be well represented in the upper echelons of the finance industry: there should be many women traders, hedge fund managers, risk analysts, etc. But this is not the case, in part because Wall Street firms have developed a culture of adolescent machismo. Michael Lewis recounts in one of his books the story of extremely well paid traders who would literally have a pissing contest every afternoon: they'd all go into the bathroom and see who could piss farthest, inevitably covering bathroom floor in urine. Is it any surprise really that these intellectual giants fail to hire women despite their better risk/reward assessment skills? Is it any surprise that the economy recently imploded because banks decided to loan large sums of money without verifying any ability to repay?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    If our institutions were rational, that would suggest that women would be well represented in the upper echelons of the finance industry: there should be many women traders, hedge fund managers, risk analysts, etc. Holding all else equal, you are right. But all else is not equal. Women have the tendency to do things like not get PhDs in technical fields, vanish from the workforce for years on end, insist on a work/life balance and not be compulsive gamblers. This reduces their representation in finance. By the way, women are hardly guiltless in the housing bubble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odQ7s85bk9s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odQ7s85bk9s
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      Women have the tendency to do things like not get PhDs in technical fields, vanish from the workforce for years on end, insist on a work/life balance and not be compulsive gamblers. This reduces their representation in finance. Um, why does any of that matter when women would increase corporate profits? If hiring lots of women traders would increase corporate profits while at the same time decreasing the number of PhDs at a firm, why on Earth would that be a problem? Do you think Wall St firms have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize the number of PhDs on staff? And I've never said that women were "guiltless" in the housing bubble.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
That’s also why feminists will argue there’s no such thing as the "truly unbiased test" you seek: testing, by attempting to quantify the qualitative (scientific aptitude), will naturally privilege the testmaker’s perspective to the exclusion of alternatives. Feminists are against quantifying stuff. Not so many feminists in science. Could there be a connection? I dunno, sounds too hard to figure out. I'll just go write some critical theory instead.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Feminists are against quantifying stuff. That all depends on how you define "feminist"; if your definition is "people who teach in women's studies departments at universities" then maybe you're correct. But most women I know in engineering consider themselves feminists. And there seem to be a lot more women in science and engineering than there are women's studies professors writing critical theory in academia.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I'm defining "feminist", for the purposes of my not very serious comment, as "people who make statements like the one I quoted".

sliverstorm 16y ago

I believe the difficulty is this particular topic is discussing ability rather than characteristic. Even when they acknowledge that there are differences in disposition, character, etc, no feminist I've met has been willing to entertain the idea that either gender might be better at (more able to do) something than the other (even though they are undoubtedly better at giving birth than men! :). I think the discussion usually gets hung up on a miscommunication though- they assume I am asking them to consider it is impossible for all women to do a certain task, when the question is only ever, is it possible one gender (not even necessarily males) might have greater potential at something. This is a valid question, no argument here. How does one address diversity in a field whose first concerns are (or should be, damnit) results and/or answers? IMHO you get answers/results, I don't give a darn who or what you are- you could be a squirrel for all I care. By the same token, if you don't, I'm not going to give you preferential treatment just because you are diverse. Though, I realize this is a very black and white position that probably fails to take into account some important realities.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
IMHO you get answers/results, I don't give a darn who or what you are You say this. And many people say it as well. But most people don't appear to really believe this. To give one example: statistically speaking, women are more rational when it comes to making risk-reward assessments than men. Men are more likely to make irrational choices because they systematically discount quantifiable risk. If our institutions were rational, that would suggest that women would be well represented in the upper echelons of the finance industry: there should be many women traders, hedge fund managers, risk analysts, etc. But this is not the case, in part because Wall Street firms have developed a culture of adolescent machismo. Michael Lewis recounts in one of his books the story of extremely well paid traders who would literally have a pissing contest every afternoon: they'd all go into the bathroom and see who could piss farthest, inevitably covering bathroom floor in urine. Is it any surprise really that these intellectual giants fail to hire women despite their better risk/reward assessment skills? Is it any surprise that the economy recently imploded because banks decided to loan large sums of money without verifying any ability to repay?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  If our institutions were rational, that would suggest that women would be well represented in the upper echelons of the finance industry: there should be many women traders, hedge fund managers, risk analysts, etc. Holding all else equal, you are right. But all else is not equal. Women have the tendency to do things like not get PhDs in technical fields, vanish from the workforce for years on end, insist on a work/life balance and not be compulsive gamblers. This reduces their representation in finance. By the way, women are hardly guiltless in the housing bubble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odQ7s85bk9s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odQ7s85bk9s
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Women have the tendency to do things like not get PhDs in technical fields, vanish from the workforce for years on end, insist on a work/life balance and not be compulsive gamblers. This reduces their representation in finance. Um, why does any of that matter when women would increase corporate profits? If hiring lots of women traders would increase corporate profits while at the same time decreasing the number of PhDs at a firm, why on Earth would that be a problem? Do you think Wall St firms have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize the number of PhDs on staff? And I've never said that women were "guiltless" in the housing bubble.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

That’s also why feminists will argue there’s no such thing as the "truly unbiased test" you seek: testing, by attempting to quantify the qualitative (scientific aptitude), will naturally privilege the testmaker’s perspective to the exclusion of alternatives. Feminists are against quantifying stuff. Not so many feminists in science. Could there be a connection? I dunno, sounds too hard to figure out. I'll just go write some critical theory instead.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Feminists are against quantifying stuff. That all depends on how you define "feminist"; if your definition is "people who teach in women's studies departments at universities" then maybe you're correct. But most women I know in engineering consider themselves feminists. And there seem to be a lot more women in science and engineering than there are women's studies professors writing critical theory in academia.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I'm defining "feminist", for the purposes of my not very serious comment, as "people who make statements like the one I quoted".