4 ms·

There is at least the "women are wonderful" effect covering both why female as well as male teachers may favor girls over boys, including subjective grading met

There is at least the "women are wonderful" effect covering both why female as well as male teachers may favor girls over boys, including subjective grading methods. That seems enough of a point to counter this being "unsupported nonsense". Additionally, pointing out most professors are men does not counter the argument. Merely the transition of going from a highly cooperation- and rule-following-favored environment to an extremely competitive environment should give some indication as to how multifaceted this problem can truly be.

endisneigh 6y ago
That just seems like a convenient excuse. Do you have any actual data to support your claim? I notice that no one ever posts any peer-reviewed research, just a bunch of anecdotes. Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. Your claimed "women are wonderful" effect seems to stop conveniently at the career stage of life.
- BlargMcLarg 6y ago
  The "women are wonderful" effect doesn't stop. I would ask you actually search around a little and read my point again, as well as the many other comments, before dragging down the conversation with phrases such as "convenient excuse". As other comments have pointed out, the reason can easily be explained by a paradigm shift. One which shifts from a cooperation-favored environment, to a competition-favored environment. Though there is an absence of evidence, the absence of evidence doesn't prove the opposite, it merely puts into question the hypothesis. > Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. The GP stated this goes for women. Clearly, that doesn't claim the same goes for men. In fact, this is entirely in-line with the "women are wonderful" phenomenon, though I would personally believe other factors are at play beyond this.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    > The "women are wonderful" effect doesn't stop. I would ask you actually search around a little and read my point again, as well as the many other comments, before dragging down the conversation with phrases such as "convenient excuse". How do you reconcile this with discrimination towards women? Also the whole trope that women somehow cannot compete and can only collaborate, as if the two things are at odds, is also exhausting.
    - BlargMcLarg 6y ago
      There are multiple possible explanations as to why they won't compete. One of them is incapability through biological inferiority, which I highly doubt is the case. Another is systematic bias. Another is really as simple as not wanting to. Again, please read what is actually written, not what you want to answer to. Frankly, this "discrimination towards women" may as well be turned around with one simple trick. Which of the two sexes is more likely to have their worth as partner be judged based on their ambition and achievements? Last time I checked, women are a lot more judgmental of their partner's ambition, earning capabilities, career, and similar traits than men are, frequently to the point of wanting a guy who is relatively "better" than themselves. You think that has no influence on competitiveness? When your worth as a romantic partner gets tied heavily to all those things, which can be found in a field emphasizing competitiveness, surely you can imagine men respond by being more competitive. Now imagine your worth isn't as tied to this, you have all these men with a very clear incentive to compete keep trying to one-up another. It isn't a secret people give up easier when the challenge is too difficult compared to the reward, and assuming above, women clearly have less of a reward at the end of this. Convenient excuses? Probably. Frankly, the entire "oppression" narrative is awfully convenient when put under the right angle. So instead of knee-jerking towards all this, let's stop this "trope" as well and address the problem for the multifaceted issue it truly is. Edit: as replying to the below is no longer an option and apparently my "competition" claim is "unsubstantiated", it seems I have to point out the obvious. Women still largely go for men outearning them rather than equals, let alone lower.(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12372 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12372) Additionally, money helps men more than women when it comes to cushioning traits of lower value (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...) Though I guess one peer-reviewed study tracking diaries says more than entire countries filled with anecdotal data of women more willing to work part time even when not caring for kids.

endisneigh 6y ago

That just seems like a convenient excuse. Do you have any actual data to support your claim? I notice that no one ever posts any peer-reviewed research, just a bunch of anecdotes. Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. Your claimed "women are wonderful" effect seems to stop conveniently at the career stage of life.

BlargMcLarg 6y ago
The "women are wonderful" effect doesn't stop. I would ask you actually search around a little and read my point again, as well as the many other comments, before dragging down the conversation with phrases such as "convenient excuse". As other comments have pointed out, the reason can easily be explained by a paradigm shift. One which shifts from a cooperation-favored environment, to a competition-favored environment. Though there is an absence of evidence, the absence of evidence doesn't prove the opposite, it merely puts into question the hypothesis. > Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. The GP stated this goes for women. Clearly, that doesn't claim the same goes for men. In fact, this is entirely in-line with the "women are wonderful" phenomenon, though I would personally believe other factors are at play beyond this.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  > The "women are wonderful" effect doesn't stop. I would ask you actually search around a little and read my point again, as well as the many other comments, before dragging down the conversation with phrases such as "convenient excuse". How do you reconcile this with discrimination towards women? Also the whole trope that women somehow cannot compete and can only collaborate, as if the two things are at odds, is also exhausting.
  - BlargMcLarg 6y ago
    There are multiple possible explanations as to why they won't compete. One of them is incapability through biological inferiority, which I highly doubt is the case. Another is systematic bias. Another is really as simple as not wanting to. Again, please read what is actually written, not what you want to answer to. Frankly, this "discrimination towards women" may as well be turned around with one simple trick. Which of the two sexes is more likely to have their worth as partner be judged based on their ambition and achievements? Last time I checked, women are a lot more judgmental of their partner's ambition, earning capabilities, career, and similar traits than men are, frequently to the point of wanting a guy who is relatively "better" than themselves. You think that has no influence on competitiveness? When your worth as a romantic partner gets tied heavily to all those things, which can be found in a field emphasizing competitiveness, surely you can imagine men respond by being more competitive. Now imagine your worth isn't as tied to this, you have all these men with a very clear incentive to compete keep trying to one-up another. It isn't a secret people give up easier when the challenge is too difficult compared to the reward, and assuming above, women clearly have less of a reward at the end of this. Convenient excuses? Probably. Frankly, the entire "oppression" narrative is awfully convenient when put under the right angle. So instead of knee-jerking towards all this, let's stop this "trope" as well and address the problem for the multifaceted issue it truly is. Edit: as replying to the below is no longer an option and apparently my "competition" claim is "unsubstantiated", it seems I have to point out the obvious. Women still largely go for men outearning them rather than equals, let alone lower.(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12372 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12372) Additionally, money helps men more than women when it comes to cushioning traits of lower value (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381730315X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...) Though I guess one peer-reviewed study tracking diaries says more than entire countries filled with anecdotal data of women more willing to work part time even when not caring for kids.