4 ms·

I think the central argument is worth spending more time on: women have options that men don't. Even in choosing colleges women have more and in many ways bett

by stolio 12y ago

I think the central argument is worth spending more time on: women have options that men don't. Even in choosing colleges women have more and in many ways better options. An engineering school trying to attract females has to compete with about 50 all girls colleges across the country where the girls will be treated quite well for four years. Guys don't have that path available so it's easier to sell them on the idea of four-and-a-half to five difficult years to earn a four year degree.

cauterized 12y ago
That wasn't the central argument I perceived. Based on how the piece was introduced, I perceived an argument that biases (which have been demonstrated over and over in scientific studies) and hostile environment have less to do with gender ratios in STEM than <long list of stereotypes about values weakly linked to data that are related only if you make some major assumptions backed only by pop psychology>. Maybe if instead of buying into traditional assumptions about gender roles we questioned them; maybe if we encouraged people to step outside traditional roles rather than spending our effort trying to insist their existence is justified; maybe then men would have more choices too (like being stay at home dads, for instance).
- stolio 12y ago
  We have a very selective and one-sided conversation about traditional gender roles that generally hinges upon notions of male privilege and patriarchy. That's not very helpful when trying to understand why men are more likely to overwork and undervalue themselves since being privileged and overvalued (for their masculinity, of course) predicts they would do the opposite. (You can shoe-horn this into a feminist critique by saying the men who become scientists do so because they fail to meet their gender expectations, but the guys down in the coal mines or dying in wars are as manly as it gets, and they're also overworked and undervalued.) I'm not just questioning traditional gender roles, I'm also questioning the feminist framework I used for years to understand those gender roles.
  - cauterized 12y ago
    I realize this is a "no true Scotsman" argument, but... The feminism I was brought up in sees the limitations of male gender roles as the other face of the same coin. Women will never truly have equality of opportunity and expectation until traditional male gender roles and expectations are also dissolved - both because male gender roles can't exist without female gender roles and because women's opportunity in the workplace is limited by the need for their partners to take on more responsibility in the home. Unfortunately, this assertion often runs into accusations of attempts to "feminize" men.
    - stolio 12y ago
      It sounds like you don't care about male problems because they're inherently important to you, but they're just a stepping stone to fixing the real problems which are the female problems. I see a lot of political will and capital devoted towards the few areas of society where women lag behind men: STEM, C-level/board positions, and being billionaires. But what about the areas where women are doing better than men, like education in general? What about the gender gaps of being a war casualty (90%+ male), dying at work (90%+ male) or being incarcerated (90%+ male)? Are these things really only worth dealing with because as a side effect women will have more opportunities in the workplace? I agree that we need to be honest about gender roles and both their good and bad aspects. I disagree that feminism is leading the way.
      - cauterized 12y ago
        I do care about men and I agree that those are problems that need to be fixed, but they're outside the scope of feminism. (Although one could argue that if certain flavors of feminism succeeded they would become much less lopsidedly male problems because a side effect would be that women would represent a higher percent of war casualties and job fatalities, but I'm not sure anyone would call that in itself progress.) Feminism isn't about fixing all the things that are wrong with the world, it's about fixing the problems that hold women back, which btw are not just about things like c-level board positions. Women are less likely to get proper followup care after heart attacks, for instance, even though they experience them nearly as frequently as men. Sexual assault and rape still affect women at such a higher rate than men it's staggering. Women are also far more likely than men to experience crippling depression (how much of that is due to biological vs cultural factors is unknown), although men tend to be more successful at committing suicide. And the growing restrictions on abortion access WILL cause women's deaths just as they did before Roe v Wade. There are other movements that address other problems with the world (pacifism, labor rights, and more). Being a feminist doesn't preclude also believing or participating in those movements. But just as sex trafficking is outside the scope of labor rights, improving safety precautions for dangerous jobs is outside the scope of feminism. Does that make sense?

by stolio 12y ago

cauterized 12y ago

That wasn't the central argument I perceived. Based on how the piece was introduced, I perceived an argument that biases (which have been demonstrated over and over in scientific studies) and hostile environment have less to do with gender ratios in STEM than <long list of stereotypes about values weakly linked to data that are related only if you make some major assumptions backed only by pop psychology>. Maybe if instead of buying into traditional assumptions about gender roles we questioned them; maybe if we encouraged people to step outside traditional roles rather than spending our effort trying to insist their existence is justified; maybe then men would have more choices too (like being stay at home dads, for instance).

stolio 12y ago
We have a very selective and one-sided conversation about traditional gender roles that generally hinges upon notions of male privilege and patriarchy. That's not very helpful when trying to understand why men are more likely to overwork and undervalue themselves since being privileged and overvalued (for their masculinity, of course) predicts they would do the opposite. (You can shoe-horn this into a feminist critique by saying the men who become scientists do so because they fail to meet their gender expectations, but the guys down in the coal mines or dying in wars are as manly as it gets, and they're also overworked and undervalued.) I'm not just questioning traditional gender roles, I'm also questioning the feminist framework I used for years to understand those gender roles.
- cauterized 12y ago
  I realize this is a "no true Scotsman" argument, but... The feminism I was brought up in sees the limitations of male gender roles as the other face of the same coin. Women will never truly have equality of opportunity and expectation until traditional male gender roles and expectations are also dissolved - both because male gender roles can't exist without female gender roles and because women's opportunity in the workplace is limited by the need for their partners to take on more responsibility in the home. Unfortunately, this assertion often runs into accusations of attempts to "feminize" men.
  - stolio 12y ago
    It sounds like you don't care about male problems because they're inherently important to you, but they're just a stepping stone to fixing the real problems which are the female problems. I see a lot of political will and capital devoted towards the few areas of society where women lag behind men: STEM, C-level/board positions, and being billionaires. But what about the areas where women are doing better than men, like education in general? What about the gender gaps of being a war casualty (90%+ male), dying at work (90%+ male) or being incarcerated (90%+ male)? Are these things really only worth dealing with because as a side effect women will have more opportunities in the workplace? I agree that we need to be honest about gender roles and both their good and bad aspects. I disagree that feminism is leading the way.
    - cauterized 12y ago
      I do care about men and I agree that those are problems that need to be fixed, but they're outside the scope of feminism. (Although one could argue that if certain flavors of feminism succeeded they would become much less lopsidedly male problems because a side effect would be that women would represent a higher percent of war casualties and job fatalities, but I'm not sure anyone would call that in itself progress.) Feminism isn't about fixing all the things that are wrong with the world, it's about fixing the problems that hold women back, which btw are not just about things like c-level board positions. Women are less likely to get proper followup care after heart attacks, for instance, even though they experience them nearly as frequently as men. Sexual assault and rape still affect women at such a higher rate than men it's staggering. Women are also far more likely than men to experience crippling depression (how much of that is due to biological vs cultural factors is unknown), although men tend to be more successful at committing suicide. And the growing restrictions on abortion access WILL cause women's deaths just as they did before Roe v Wade. There are other movements that address other problems with the world (pacifism, labor rights, and more). Being a feminist doesn't preclude also believing or participating in those movements. But just as sex trafficking is outside the scope of labor rights, improving safety precautions for dangerous jobs is outside the scope of feminism. Does that make sense?