Why are there so few women in things like computer science and car racing?

I’m seeing more and more women in the field of computer science.
As far as car racing.. perhaps we just have better sense ;P

But to really answer your question it could be unfair hiring practices based on limited education and/or stereotypes. I bet that when a woman walks into a car racing lot she has to work extra hard to prove herself. For some people it isn’t worth it. In other scenarios, say a woman getting hired as a mechanic, it is likely she would have to go to twice as many interviews to get hired.

It could also just be our social genderization in the media and in schools. Women simply aren’t shown as car racers, mechanics, etc.. in the media. And in schools teachers are becoming more aware and progressive but generally girls aren’t encouraged to break such gender stereotypes. Even look at children’s toys. They are still separated into boy and girl isles. The girl isles have baby dolls, the boy isles have race cars. It is socialization in action.

@RedPowerLady GA.

Also, as a whole, young men exhibit more thrill-seeing behavior and seek adrenaline rushes more than young women. That could explain the lack of women in racing.

@Likeradar I was going to say something very similar to that but didn’t have a way of explaining “why” that is. Any ideas?

Until recently I worked for one of the international giants of the computer world. There was no shortage of women at all levels, right up to VP of engineering. It might or might not be significant that a very large percentage of those women either were born outside the U.S. or were second generation.

Education and the media probably have a lot to do with the imbalances you see, but I also think that one difference between the sexes is their respective definitions of glamour.

@RedPowerLady
I believe it’s testosterone… it’s been a long time since those courses in college, but I’ll look for some links.

Because these are still heavily male-dominated fields and it’s hard for women to see themselves as parts of them…this is all about socialization…clearly women are just as capable in either field intellectually…but the surrounding gendered culture might be a turn-off for some…

Because we’ve all been gobbled up and married.

Ok, in all seriousness now. I think it has to do with how they are perceived. Plus it’s not ‘fashionable’ for women to be into them.

What women in racing are we exposed to? Girls in bikinis walking infront of the cars, their breasts hanging out, having their picture taken. Not exactly inviting. The reason I’m a Top Gear fan (and buy the mag at ten bucks a pop) is that they have created a much more welcoming environment for women. I’m not required to grab a bikini and slut it out to be included. I can dork out with the guys. Half the audience for TG is female so that speaks volumes, imo.

Women are all over computer sciences- just not in the media sense. When things are marketed to ‘computer nerds’ they automatically assume a lot- namely they assume we are all male.

Another layer is how girls are taught in school. Boys are called on more, encouraged more in the sciences and maths. Two things important to tech fields. Also, girls are- by large- given toys to do pretend play with, not constructive play. Girls aren’t encouraged to do much come to think of it.

[Mod Says:] Above comment removed at the request of user.

To echo many of the things already said, I can see any of the following possibilities contributing to varying degrees:

1. Women’s biology predisposes them to be be worse at these things, making it difficult for them to be successful and therefore unlikely to pursue them.
2. Women’s biology predisposes them to be less interested in these things, making them unlikely to pursue them.
3. Women are equally competent and interested, but men (or other women in a position of authority) consciously or unconsciously make it difficult for them to be successful in these fields.
4. Women are socialized to believe they are uninterested or less competent in these fields.

I find 4 to be the least compelling explanation in that it neglects to address where that socialization comes from, and I would posit that socialization likely comes from inherent biological differences between the sexes. So if you agree with my premise, 4 is a one-step-removed version of 1 or 2.

And I think steps are being taken to balance this out at the institutional level. I work in a field that is largely male-dominated (neuroscience) and think it was probably no coincidence that my entering class had exactly 5 men and 5 women in it.

I do question the wisdom of this forced equilibration of the sexes if that is indeed what is going on. If it does turn out that there are innate differences in interest or ability, biasing groups to select for higher numbers of women seems unwise and unfair.

The television is loaded with ads for cars. The ones for fast cars show only men driving, one even has a little boy in a car seat with a steering wheel mimicking dad driving. The only time a woman drives is in a minivan full of kids.

I think that sends a message to females.

Women are slowly infiltrating all fields dominated by men despite the negativity of advertising and culture in general. I recently read where more girls are at the top of their classes in math and science supposedly because they are no longer being told, either overtly or subtly, they cannot or should not excel.

I find 4 to be extremely relevant and compelling. Most parenting experts seem to feel that if a child is told they are “bad” it will become a self fulfilling prophecy, is it somehow different in education? If female children continue to be bombarded with the sort of subliminal and not so subliminal messages that tell them they don’t like fast cars, are not risk takers, only want/are good for marriage & motherhood, cheerleading instead of on the field, then that is what they will grow up believing.

1 & 2 are the ancient excuses used to keep women in their place and in non competitive roles with insecure males.

But the rats in the maze probably are still stuck back on the spacial theory.

@rooeytoo I am inclined to agree with you :)

@rooeytoo: I still have the same question: if 4 is an issue (which it very likely is), where does that socialization come from? Who decided that X, Y, and Z are for men, and A, B, and C are for women?

What I am trying to suggest is that innate differences in EITHER competence or preference between men and women generated a disparity that has since been advanced by society. But my point is that these innate differences (a) exist and (b) are the ultimate causative agents of the phenomenon @timtrueman describes.

@nikipedia – and I think your a & b are male insecurities coming out. If you repeatedly give a message to a little girl by the ads on telly, the toys they are given, the cheerleading and on and on and on and on there is going to be a result. Again I refer to the “bad” child theory.

Barefoot and pregnant are not threatening, however beside you at the job and heaven forbid surpassing you in achievements is terrifying!!!

Quick change the education system, the bloody broads are learning to learn and getting better at it than we are, there must be something wrong with the system!

@nikipedia I can say that socialization in the US (for many communities) came with colonization. Gender roles pre-colonization were much different than they are today. As an example: During the Boarding School era Natives were taught that girls had to be this way and boys had to be that way. And it was not ‘natural’ to them as their systems were quite different.

@rooeytoo: I don’t think it has anything to do with male insecurities. I am a woman and I study sex differences in the brain for a living, and I have seen firsthand a great deal of evidence showing that they do indeed exist.

I still feel like you aren’t addressing the point that I am trying to raise. I fully agree that there are messages in society that say “girls do ABC” and “boys do XYZ.” I am in no way contradicting that. I am asking why that socialization exists and where it came from.

@RedPowerLady: Thank you, I think that is beginning to drive at my point. But I think it still does not really provide a satisfactory answer—i.e., how did the colonizers decide what was male vs female? Also, suppose we could find male/female divisions that are true across cultures, and were there before colonization etc—would you then consider those to be innate?

@nikipedia I suspected you would ask how did colonizers decide but that is beyond the point because tribal people did not follow those beliefs. So a large majority of people did not have those internal drives you are talking about. Perhaps the colonizers did but that is only one group of people.

I may support your theory if yes there were divisions that were true pre-colonization and across cultures. That seems like a fairly large sampling. Of course we would also have to consider the “age” and what was or was not available to them at the time. But it would be a great starting point.

@nikipedia – we have been in this discussion before and you say science proves the differences are physiologial. And I say there is no level playing field from which to make this determination. Until tampons and birth control women didn’t have a shot at equality. So that is a fair bit of history to overcome. You are saying the differences in taste come from the brain, who is to say the brain has not evolved that way because of the cultural input from the beginning of time.

It is changing now, is it not? More women in fields that were once completely dominated by males. Given the fact that the input has been going in since the adam and eve (that should set off a whole new flurry of stuff) we’ve come a long way baby. Guess you are proof of that since you are in the field you are in. Wonder if you are brainwashed by your surroundings????

I imagine when technology wasn’t as advanced as it is now, sex differences in strength and so on made a difference. Most women probably couldn’t bring down a woolly mammoth, not because they couldn’t set up and build a trap to catch the bugger, but because there were children who needed personal care. Taking care of a helpless child who can’t walk for a year and can’t talk for nearly two is very intensive work, as any parent will tell you, and it was easier to gather food (which was the vast majority of the diet anyway) and be near the children than it was to hunt (tracking game is pretty intensive as well), or fight a war, or to otherwise defend the tribe.

This wouldn’t be for all women, obviously. That why the likes of Boadicea stand out.

The world isn’t like that anymore, but parts of human thinking haven’t caught up to the reality that for the vast majority of jobs, including computer science, auto racing, fighting wars and so on, sex differences no longer matter. We are usually taught what was taught to those before us, and that’s where the conditioning comes from, I reckon.

@rooeytoo: I am happy to continue this conversation with you and present data to support my statements, but please back off the insults. I would never accuse you of being brainwashed. Given how much time, energy, thoughtfulness, and devotion I have poured into my field of study there is not much you could say to me that would be more hurtful than that.

@nikipedia – that remark was a logical follow on to the entire conversation. Women are, believe, become what society has brainwashed them into being. If you are in a male dominated field, raised in a male dominated society, why would you not succumb? I think there are a hell of a lot of frustrated race car drivers, computer nerds, carpenters, etc. out there teaching kindergarten and being nurses instead of doctors because that it never occurred to them they were allowed to be something else.

I readily admit I was brainwashed for a long time so accuse away if you want to call it that, it would be true. I just happen now to believe that I am a product of my environment more than my neurons.

<insert inappropriate barefoot and pregnant reference here>

i can’t do it all folks

@nikipedia socialization comes from everyone and no one – it comes from parents first and foremost followed by others kids interact with, then peers and colleagues…people’s gender expressions are kept in check by others…if you spend one day listening for gendered suggestions, jokes, insults…you’d have a whole notebook of notes…here’s a simple place to start…i can give you more complex links if you want
http://www.newsweek.com/id/214834

Honestly, girls were discouraged in their interest in these areas for a long time. It was always “boys are good at math and science” and “girls are good at languages”. I remember reading a study many years ago about this that said educators generally push boys in math and science, but don’t expect much from the girls, not to mention the boys were generally encouraged in their pursuits in those areas and girls encouraged in others.

I think this sort of thing happens less these days, as it’s becoming more and more accepted that women can excel in many different fields. Also, as women working in the fields rise higher in the ranks and demonstrate their capability, it becomes more normal to expect girls to do well in whatever subject suits them.

Women, Don’t Drive

There are far more women in computer science than in engineering, but still they are a large minority.

Women are more passionate about getting a holistic understanding of things and becoming too specialized seems less attractive. Some neuroscientists compare male brains with separate drawers, boxes, compartments and the tunnel vision approach. The female approach seems more like searching for something in a trunk when you tend to bump into or come across other items. Engineers and surgeons might require more drawers while psychologists and general practitioners might require more trunks.

Car racing is a different matter and it has to do with aggression and competition. During the mating season, bucks use their antlers to fight one another for the opportunity to attract mates in a given herd. Human mating season is all year round. For some men cars make good antlers.

@mattbrowne we are so much more than the essentialist biological explanations

I happen to agree, actually. I think it has a lot less to do with our brains than it does with being permitted or it being accepted for women to be in those fields. In the early 1900’s, you didn’t see any blacks in these fields, because it wasn’t accepted or allowed, not because their brains were wired differently.

Let’s not forget that as recently as in the first half of the 20th century, women were thought to be fairly witless and better suited for housekeeping and childrearing, something which has obviously been disproved.

GA and lurve lurve lurve for all those who say in so many words what @Simone_De_Beauvoir has put so eloquently and succinctly, “we are so much more than the essentialist biological explanations”

I lurve that and so do all the little girls growing up in this world today who should have an equal shot at being race car drivers and puter geeks or anything in this whole world that they want to be.

As long as they keep being told, you don’t process information properly, you don’t have enough competitive instinct they might keep believing it and civilization will miss out on a huge contribution but the contributor is back in the kitchen or being an aid at a child care center.

I have as much aggression and competitive feelings as anyone I know and usually can whup at tennis men twice my size and skill thanks to it.

So stop telling little girls what they don’t have, can’t be and start telling them what boys are told, YOU CAN BE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BE!

@rooeytoo I don’t have little girls as I am raising two boys but you better be sure that if I ever give birth to a female child, there will be no difference in the way I raise her – other than to inform her and her brothers why others might see them differently

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – I have heard you say that numerous times and I always admire you for it. I am sure your boys will be better human beings because of it.

@rooeytoo we’ll wait and see how they turn out, :)

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – My reasoning is in no way a contradiction to all of us boys and girls, men and women being so much more than the essentialist biological explanations. And when looking a biological differences we always have to add “on average” which means a woman can be taller than a man and a man can be a far better general practitioners than a women who loves to be a specialist for quantum computers. However, on average there are differences. Now how much is genetic and how much is conditioning is controversial. Most reputable scientists claim both have significant influence.

I know that some feminists resent the difference approach and basically believe if conditions are equal and fair in a couple of years we’ll have 50% female and 50% male computer scientists (which was the original Fluther question). I beg to differ, although I strongly believe that too many girls don’t realize that they have a great potential and talent to become computer scientists or engineer or air traffic controllers. This could mean that in the future we have 25% female electrical engineers instead of 10%. Maybe 15% will engage in car racing instead of 3%.

Yes, girls can be anything they want to be. But we should also respect what they don’t want to be. There are a lot of opportunities of equal value. My country has a female chancellor and I think that’s great. She got the job because she was the best. Not because she was a woman. Obama got the job because he was the best, not because he had an African father. I’m sure the US will have a female president within the next 20 years.

@mattbrowne I do not speak on behalf of feminists – I speak on behalf of myself, a person of science and a person of sociology – what is ‘average’ is a lot less static than you may think and 50%/50% is not what’s at stake here…the reason why essentialist thinking is problematic is because it presents certain (fallible) scientific findings as truth to the public that are not equipped at getting into the gritty details of study design and analysis…there have been many researchers ( I recently read an article about an MIT study done to disprove the very difference you discuss when it comes to mathematical ability…at work now, maybe I’ll find the link later) debating on this matter but what is presented in the media is what serves the current societal view of men and women…as to your third paragraph, I agree…but don’t see how it connects to the other two or how it refutes any of my points…

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – No scientific finding is absolute truth. Science has a build-in feature allowing to correct itself. There are many old studies and there are many new studies and of course we need more new studies in the future. Very interesting are studies using fMRI scans. 1000 men. 1000 women. Being asked to listen or watch or do something. There are even studies asking couples to engage in various sexual activities. And the scanners are recording this. And the scientists are doing post-scanning evaluations. I don’t see a problem if on average some of the active areas in the brains differ. Does male and female sexuality for example have to be exactly the same?

Very often women and men on average use somewhat different mental strategies to come to the same results. Sometimes there’s no difference at all when looking at fMRI scans. 45 of the 46 chromosomes of men and women are exactly the same. Again, girls can be anything they want to be. But we should also respect what they don’t want to be. So if in the future the majority of women don’t want to become air traffic controllers this has nothing to do with unequal opportunities. If however women in the very same professional role on average earn less than men, this is outrageous and totally unacceptable.

@mattbrowne I think you misunderstand me – when I say that there are no differences I do not advocate sameness – in fact, I advocate more focus on individuality that the two major sexes and/or genders provide…I also don’t understand why you jump from having certain fMRI results to saying we should respect what girls don’t want to do…I would be the last person pushing children of any gender to do what they don’t want…however it is ridiculous to think that children aren’t affected by societal norms placed on them as to what they should want to do and as to what they should stay away with..and hardly are any of these people knowledgeable about brain imaging

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – Sorry, yes, I think I misunderstood the point you were making and thanks for the clarification. I apologize. Of course, children are affected by societal norms. Just look at all the trash commercials on television. Huge influence which is very sad. My point is, societal norms are not the only factor able to explain why there are so few women in things like computer science and car racing. Essentialist biological explanations are worthy of serious debate. This doesn’t mean all of them are true. This doesn’t mean that metaphors like drawers or trunks always make sense. But they enrich the discussion. They should not be a taboo. I’m just voicing an opinion here.

My kids are fraternal twins, a boy and a girl. The goal of our education was equal opportunities and total openness to what they want to be. We didn’t give them war toys such as guns, for example, because we felt they should learn that conflicts can be solved peacefully using words, not weapons. My boy one day took a piece of wood and declared: this is my gun. He was beaming and so very proud. He disarmed us with his charm this very moment. My girl wasn’t interested in guns whatsoever. She did much better in school and graduated with a higher GPA than my son. She’s in college now and very successful, becoming a media professional. My son is doing a year of community service working with handicapped children. He hasn’t decided about college yet, but might enroll to become a teacher. My wife is a teacher. I’m a computer scientist.

@mattbrowne I agree that biological explanations are worthy of debate – just saying they’re not the end all and be all – the example of your children is one I hear often…your boy’s interest in a gun isn’t anything biological, imo…he is affected by more than his parents…

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – My mother had been an elementary teacher for 40 years mostly teaching first and second graders. Her observation: on average boys are far more aggressive than girls. Explanation? There are many. Here’s mine: biology and parents and societal norms.

My boy’s interest in guns is 28.47% biology. Okay, I just pulled this number out of my hat ;-)

@mattbrowne I don’t think boy’s aggression comes from their biology – sure they may have testostorone but that comes into play much later and not in elementary school

Could the gun thing have something to do with the fact that the boys he associated with all had guns, or that most depictions of guns are in some way associated with males?

It is impossible to allow a child to grow up (unless they are on a desert island with no influences from media, other kids, parents, etc.) without the child getting the message of good girls don’t, boys like guns, girls are cheerleaders, boys are race car drivers, and on and on and on.

And as long as we keep harping on these so called “averages” it is sending the message out there to both sexes as they grow up but the message is more repressing to young girls, that is “you probably don’t have what it takes to be a _________.”

My son was 3 years old when he manufactured his own gun shortly before he started to go to a kindergarten. I think boys’ aggression comes from a mixture of biology, parents, other kids and general societal norms for example conveyed by media.

I never claimed that biology is the only factor explaining why boys on average are more aggressive, are more interested in car racing or becoming an engineer. All I’m saying is biology is a significant factor. A 30% influence for example is significant and what really matters is the interaction of the genes with the environment. The field of epigenetics is very promising. What switches genes off and on in boys and girls?

Here are a few interested articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Aggression_and_gender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Aggression_in_children

It says: the frequency of physical aggression in humans peaks at around 2–3 years of age. It then declines gradually on average. These observations suggest that physical aggression is mostly not a learned behavior and that development provides opportunities for the learning of self-regulation. However, a small subset of children fails to acquire the necessary self-regulatory abilities and tends to show atypical levels of physical aggression across development. These may be at risk for later violent behavior.

My son, by the way, is now a very peaceful young man. His interest in guns is gone. In

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_influencing_aggression

a very important statement is “Decades of research has demonstrated that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in a variety of behaviors in humans and animals. The genetic basis of aggression, however, remains poorly understood.” Later the article says:

“Aggression, as well as other behavioral traits, is studied genetically based on its heritability through generations. Heritability models of aggression are mainly based on animals due to the ethical concern in using humans for genetic study.”

A quite recent article dated Oct 2, 2009 is

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091001163724.htm

Estrogen Link In Male Aggression Sheds New Light On Sex-Specific Behaviors

Territorial behavior in male mice might be linked to more “girl-power” than ever suspected, according to new findings at UCSF. For the first time, researchers have identified networks of nerve cells in the brain that are associated with how male mice defend their territory and have shown that these cells are controlled by the female hormone estrogen.

@mattbrowne My oldest son is 3 years old – the only time he picked up anything and used it as a gun that shoots was after he saw some older kids (with dumb parents) at the park shooting a big toy rifle at birds in the trees – he repeated the action and was very promptly scolded on 3 separate occasions by myself, my husband and my mother – that kind of behavior is NOT acceptable in our house, no matter the gender of our children…to get back to my original point, he never fashioned a gun until he was prompted by his social environment…so what does that mean? does that discredit that your son did? no…but it means that one parent’s anecdotes about their children, whether the parent is you or I, doesn’t actually explain anything

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – You are correct and of course anecdotes are not science. We cannot conclude anything for sure from one isolated “gun” event. However there’s real scientific research out there trying to determine how the biology of gender, parental influence and societal norms (including all the interactions and feedback loops) really work. Epigenetics is especially promising as are the interpretations of fMRI scans. We’ll see whether anyone’s interest in a gun isn’t anything biological. I’m not sure whether we have a gender neurobiology expert on Fluther. I’m not one of them. I’m just interested in this subject. I know that nikipedia studies neurosciences. There was some other thread about memory and neurogenesis. I now know that she’s a she.

@mattbrowne: The thing is, I do consider myself something of an expert, or at least an aspiring expert. The lab I work in specifically studies sex differences in memory, (e.g., this article from Scientific American, or this article from the academic journal Learning and Memory).

So I do consider myself reasonably well-qualified to comment on the topic. But the message I’m getting from this thread—and please do correct me if I’m wrong—is that my perspective is necessarily colored by the patriarchal establishment, rendering any scientific findings as well as my interpretation of them spurious or meaningless.

@nikipedia I don’t think it’s colored that way – just that I would question the reason why our brains are this way and say that it’s not an inevitable difference but a response of our brains to specific socialization – I would put forth a hypothesis that the patterns our brains make over the lifeime depend on external influences ( I am interested in the idea of neuroplasticity) – I am interested just like you and @mattbrowne in the interesection of biology and societal influences

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: Sure, I think that’s a reasonable hypothesis, and a very difficult one to test in humans. But I think the animal literature is very clear, and it would be difficult to argue that animals are socialized a certain way. And the findings from animal literature are slowly but surely showing up in studies looking at humans. Certainly this doesn’t prove anything—it’s entirely possible that parallel sex differences emerge biologically in animals, but via socialization in humans—but that seems to be a more cumbersome and unlikely explanation in my mind.

Beyond that, many of the sex differences we see are things that would be difficult to generate through socialization. If I can refer once again to findings from my lab, we’ve seen that men tend to have greater activation in their right amygdala during the encoding of emotional memories, and women have more activation in their left amygdala. I really have trouble coming up with a mechanism by which society would encourage differential amygdala lateralization… but again, it’s not impossible.

@nikipedia I understand that testable differences come up – they are, however, so often turned into media pieces that only fuel a divide fueled by our society’s view of different genders..I would also say that we know little about the brain even though it seems we can ‘see’ so much through scans or viewing activation…in that I understand that you’re seeing the results you’re seeing but I want to know why those are the results…and yes I know there is ‘proof’ in nature but I am not concerned about animals, just people…and there are studies done on animals, while we’re on the topic, that have disproved specific gender expectations in humans (like the sexuality studies in bonobo (sp?) monkeys, etc.)

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: I agree that there is a lot about the brain we don’t know, but I think there is a lot we do know, too. If you have specific questions about methodologies used to understand the brain, I can try to help with that. I have personally done functional magnetic resonance imaging, which shows activation in different parts of the brain, behavioral tests on people, behavioral tests on animals, immunohistochemistry to measure levels of hormones, electrophysiology to see the electrical activity in a single cell in a dish, and possibly some other techniques that I’m forgetting….

I don’t really understand these comments:
“I understand that you’re seeing the results you’re seeing but I want to know why those are the results”
We also want to know why these are the results. I don’t think that invalidates the findings at all.

“and yes I know there is ‘proof’ in nature”
I don’t think many scientists would ever say they’ve “proved” anything. Science isn’t very good at proving stuff, just disproving it.

“but I am not concerned about animals, just people”
Most scientists who use rats, drosophila, aplysia, and other model organisms are also concerned about people. But we can’t do these experiments directly on people, so we try to approximate them using model organisms. Are you saying that you consider these models so insufficient that we can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from them?

And if you do consider animal models insufficient for arguing the counterpoint to your argument, it seems decidedly unfair to use them to support your argument (i.e., the bonobo reference).

I personally do think animal models are useful, and am happy to talk about why that is. But I think the bonobo findings you mentioned are a great example of why model organisms are so helpful. Those were significant findings that really impacted the way scientists study sexuality.

@nikipedia no, of course it doesn’t invalidate the findings – that’s what I’ve been trying to say…and I’m using the word proof loosely hence the quotation marks…and as someone who’s done research on rats and c.elegans, I understand the importance of approximation to humans but I think human beings (when it comes to interaction between sex and gender and environment) are far more complex that even the closest animals to us…the bonobo reference was brought up just to show that if one is to use animals studies to show something gender related in humans, there can also be studies found to show the opposite…

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: Of course, I absolutely agree that animal models can be used to study any hypothesis. It would be hard for any scientist to contest that.

I agree that sex and gender and environment are complex systems, but we did emerge from those organisms many millions of years ago. They are our ancestors, and the complex systems we are were once the complex systems they are. We can’t approximate our entire experience with a model organism, but I think we can isolate specific characteristics of it and test those hypotheses.

@nikipedia agreed – I just wish that sensationalized conclusions weren’t drawn from animal studies or from scan studies – it is important to call a spade a spade and not start explaining away sexist institutions in our society by waving around scientific studies that were never even meant to be used in such a manner

Couple of thoughts. First of all, I’m under the impression that some women feel it’s politically incorrect to mention biology as one of several factors determining the behavior and interests of boys and girls / men and women. I think we should move beyond that. Most educated modern men don’t think in categories like superior or inferior anymore. Some topics remain on our todo lists such as equal pay for equal work. And there are a few powerful men left in the upper echelons of companies who still have their own (hidden) agendas. They are betting on the wrong horses. Instead of hiring below average men, they should look for top female talent. If they don’t, their competitors will.

Second, I think there are good evolutionary reasons that modern homo sapiens turned out the way they are. In most respects women and men are almost identical and where they differ (brain, fat reserves, muscles etc), they actually complement each other very well.

Here’s a key element of the article mentioned by @nikipedia and I totally agree with this:

“To date, no one has uncovered any evidence that anatomical disparities might render women incapable of achieving academic distinction in math, physics or engineering. And the brains of men and women have been shown to be quite clearly similar in many ways. Nevertheless, over the past decade investigators have documented an astonishing array of structural, chemical and functional variations in the brains of males and females.”

To me the issue is not about potential or capabilities, it’s about focal points of interest. So even if countless women are totally capable of being top engineers, many will choose other academic field where they can excel. Many women won’t choose car racing or American football as a sport, but soccer for example. “Germany will once again be hosting a FIFA World Cup in 2011, only this time it will be the women’s turn to shine” (ad from FIFA website).

Some women choose to walk to the south pole. Even teenagers, see

http://www.fluther.com/disc/64281/what-is-a-good-minimum-age-for-children-or-young-adults/

To all the young women out there reading this thread – do not believe them, you can be anything you want to be.

When I was young I wanted to be a veterinarian, I was told it was not a job for women, not big enough, not strong enough, women are not good at science. Now almost 50 years later there are many female vets who are quite good at their jobs (amazing isn’t it!)

So probably 50 years from now when there are many female race car drivers and computer scientists, folks will scratch their heads in wonder that women were told they weren’t right for the job.

I believe you nay sayers are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe about what women are capable of, but why do you feel this need to insist that women be repressed and dissuaded from having a chance? Why do you insist on discouraging with your words? Why do you keep insisting that everyone agree with your opinion? I don’t get it.

Remember it was the learned academics and scientists of the world who once swore the earth was flat.

@rooeytoo – I don’t get it either and don’t understand why you are so upset. In my previous post I wrote that I see equal potential and capabilities. This can’t be stated more clearly. I’m your ally, not your enemy. Why would I be a nay sayer? Do you hate all men? Do you hate science?

@nikipedia, a woman, studies sex differences in memory. @Simone_De_Beauvoir said she’s interested in the intersection of biology and societal influences.

So what exactly is your point?

@mattbrowne I would think you, of all people, would be the last person to jump to the conclusion that someone like @rooeytoo ‘hates all men AND science’ based on her above statements – that is just uncalled for

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – I find it very unfair when someone tries to depict me as a macho here, trying to persuade young girl that they can’t do this and that. That I have this need to insist that women be repressed and dissuaded from having a chance. I find that quite personal and this is not who I am.

@mattbrowne it’s not who you are and I really don’t think that’s what was being implied – you’re taking something personally that, imo, wasn’t directed at you – you have been able to, mostly, remain impartial and provide good feedback but this makes me think this entire topic is more of a trigger issue for you than you thought

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – You sure? This question:

“Why do you keep insisting that everyone agree with your opinion?”

Who is she asking?

Maybe I misunderstood.

@mattbrowne okay, but I can not see how that means she hates ALL men and science – I thought that was a knee jerk cliche and hurtful reaction from someone who knows better and who could have said something else instead – that question has nothing to do with gender or sexism or science or maybe I misunderstood

Well, @rooeytoo‘s post was right below mine and I assumed it was a reply to me. And earlier in the thread she already accused me of sending the wrong message to girls. I really thought I was accused of being a sexist. If this isn’t so, then maybe I overreacted. But a clarification would be in order here. You know that I don’t get upset easily. And on Fluther this only happened once so far (in March 2009). Well, this last post was also upsetting. But I’m cooling down already. Thanks for your help @Simone_De_Beauvoir !

@mattbrowne don’t be upset. we know better. wis.dm has taught us well.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – Yes, it did !

@mattbrowne – well it sure as hell is a big leap to say that I hate men and science. I have said nothing to indicate that. If I followed your line of reasoning, I would assume you hate all women because you don’t want them to be engineers or race car drivers. Ridiculous, isn’t it!

If you read your posts above they are indeed insisting that science proves women are not engineered to be engineers. If that is not discouraging and dissuading a young woman who wants to enter into that field, then I don’t know what is! Telling her she is doomed by her sex before she even begins.

And you certainly seen hell bent on making me agree with you and showing me how wrong I am.

So I reiterate, young women, you can be anything you want to be.

And if someone accuses you of being a man & science hater because you dare to dream of becoming a race car driver, just walk away shaking your head in amazement and wonder that such a scientific mind could reach such an illogical conclusion.

Wow. I’m seeing a lot of misunderstanding going on here. I know that Matt didn’t mean his “hate men and science” comment to @rooeytoo literally! It was a rhetorical question. Nowhere did I see anyone implying that women “can’t” be whatever they want to be. Nowhere did I see anyone implying that women aren’t “capable” of certain tasks. All I see are some logical debates over the differences between men and women, trying to determine if the differences are more biological or more social. I also see people getting their backs up if there is any suggestion that men and women DO think differently by nature. It seems that if someone suggests that, the assumption is that the women are inferior in their ways of thinking, and I don’t get that. Why aren’t people assuming that it’s the MAN whose thinking is inferior?! I don’t understand why anyone would assume that if men and women think differently, it just follows that one is inferior to the other.

I also don’t understand why it’s offensive to suggest that men and women ARE biologically different in the way they think…what’s wrong with that?

It just isn’t that complicated to me. Much of it is biological, and much of it is social pressures too. For example, in Middle School, in the 70’s, they gave aptitude tests. I assumed that I’d score highest in the Language Arts and sociology (because I was a girl.) To my surprise, my highest score was in engineering (98%). People thought that was interesting (read “unusual”) and nobody did a thing with it. I wasn’t encouraged to go into engineering. I was strongly discouraged from taking shop classes in HS when I wanted to (I didn’t take it.) Those attitudes have changed radically in the years since, but we still have a ways to go.

As far as “car racing” and such…imo that is total biology. The man that is the biggest and fastest and the strongest in any tribe has the best chance of passing his genes on, and they’ll take a lot of risks to prove that. Women, on the other hand, are far more inclined, naturally, to protect themselves for the benefit of their children. Women have a lot more at stake in the offspring than the men do. If they live through childbirth, they damn sure want to be sure the offspring survives, and if they get themselves killed everything they’ve gone through would have been worthless. You can see that same pattern in almost every mammalian “society” where you can be sure there is no social pressure to behave a certain way.

To any young woman who is not worrying about your offspring and instead just wants to take risks and see how fast you can go, I say

GO FOR IT

Don’t worry about those who tell you that your brain is not wired for it, just go ahead and do what you want to do.

There are quite a few teen aged girls in this fluther, I hope if you are reading this you are not being brainwashed into thinking you cannot do something, or that you shouldn’t want to do something because it is not what science says women should want to do.

Just get out there and do it!!!

@rooeytoo What exactly do you find bad about the concept of biologic, genetic brain differences? I didn’t say women “shouldn’t” take life-risking chances if they want to. If you want to do that, sure, go for it. My point is, I believe that, generally speaking, the female brain is biologically designed to not feel the need or the desire to take the same risks as men, and that’s the biggest reason you don’t find many women in life-threatening sports. And what is wrong with that?

As far as not finding them in fields such as computer science or medicine…..I’d say that if that is so, then it’s more of social pressure thing, and THAT is wrong.

@Val123 – I think it is a shame that any young woman reading this or looking at the commercials on television or looking at the adds in a magazine is being given the message that the “ideal” or “normal” woman isn’t interested in speed or racing or competition.

Pity the young woman who is so intrigued by computer science and really wants to get into but reads a thread like this and thinks I must be weird or my brain doesn’t fire properly so I won’t be able to do this or if I were normal I wouldn’t even want to try it in the first place!

If you choose to believe that you can’t do something, that is fine, if you choose not to be a race car driver that is fine, but why does every other female who would like to give it a go, have to be told she is somehow different because “the female brain is biologically designed to not feel the need or the desire to take the same risks as men.”

I resent being told what my brain is supposed to feel.

And I believe it is a definite deterrent to hammer this into a young female head.

@rooeytoo Per “is being given the message that the “ideal” or “normal” woman isn’t interested in speed or racing or competition.” I didn’t say that. I said nothing about an “ideal” or “normal” women isn’t interested in competition. I, for one, am a very competitive person.

Per “Pity the young woman who is so intrigued by computer science and really wants to get into but reads a thread like this” I never saw anything, anywhere in this thread, that would discourage a women from going into computer science or racing or anything else they want to. What I DID say is that if there IS a lack of women in the sciences, then that is because of social pressure, and that is wrong because there is nothing that I can think of, biologically, that would make a women less interested in such pursuits than a man.

Re “the female brain is biologically designed to not feel the need or the desire to take the same risks as men.” I said, “In general” the female brain doesn’t feel the need for intense, physical competition,” that a man’s does. There are always exceptions, of course, and if a woman really wants to engage in risky behavior, then go for it. It doesn’t make her less of a woman, and it’s certainly not “wrong” for her to feel that way.

However, I still believe much of what determines our interests are the differences in the way men and women have come to think, over millions of years of evolution. I didn’t say anything was “right” or “wrong.”

@Val123 – Your answer is very well crafted but I still send out this message to young women

You can be anything you want to be. As I said above,

“When I was young I wanted to be a veterinarian, I was told it was not a job for women, not big enough, not strong enough, women are not good at science. Now almost 50 years later there are many female vets who are quite good at their jobs.”

Do not be discouraged or dissuaded by those who subtly insinuate you are different if you opt for a career that is not currently or culturally accepted as a choice for a female

Now maybe I am an odd ball, but I know that if I were a young female interested in computer science or race car driving reading this thread, I would surely get the feeling that I am somehow strange or “outside the box” by my choices. Believe what you want to believe but I think it is a crime to impart this belief onto a kid.

@rooeytoo I agree 100% with what you’re saying.

BTW…you and I were raised in roughly the same era. I grew up hearing on the playground that boys are smarter/better than girls. The “Stupid women drivers, pah!” jokes…... as I said, in Middle School, in the 70’s, they gave aptitude tests. I assumed that I’d score highest in the Language Arts and sociology (because I was a girl.) To my surprise, my highest score was in engineering (98%). People thought that was interesting (read “unusual”) and nobody did a thing with it. I wasn’t encouraged to go into engineering. I was strongly discouraged from taking shop classes in HS when I wanted to (I didn’t take it.)
I heard Helen Reddy singing “I am woman, hear me roar” on the Tonight’s show with Johnny Carson. I’ve seen the fight, and have reaped the benefits from it this far.

I understand your strong feelings about the subject. I feel the same way. Don’t ever let anyone tell you you shouldn’t or can’t do something just because you’re female (or male, or Black or anything for that matter.) But that doesn’t negate the biologic tendencies. It has nothing to do with intelligence, either. It has to do with inclinations.

http://www.fluther.com/disc/64615/in-nature-is-the-male-of-the-species-far-more-expendable/

@rooeytoo: I want to ask you a completely hypothetical question. Suppose in an alternate universe somewhere, men really were better at certain things because of biological characteristics, and women really were better at other things because of certain biological characteristics.

How would you want that alternate universe to deal with it? Should they pretend the differences don’t exist? Or should they study them, talk about them, and show the two sexes how to learn from one another?

@nikipedia if that alternate universe didn’t have our universe’s history of deep-seated sexism, it’d be okay…differences would be treated for what they are, just differences and not as tools to keep the sexes battling and separated

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yes, we have deep seated sexism in our society which is still a factor in so many things. Not as much as in bygone generations, as @rooeytoo and I can attest to from personal experience. BUT there are biological differences between men and women, so why can’t we be OK in this universe with ”(treating) differences…..for what they are, just differences.”? Why are biological differences not ok to acknowledge here? Why do we want to insist that there are no biological differences, as if biological differences are something bad? As if those differences, in some un-understandable way, automatically make one group superior to the other? (There is no such word as “un-understandable” is there. Bleh. I didn’t know how else to put it! You know what I mean…)

@Val123 um, no one was saying there are no biological differences – what I’m arguing is the kind of value we attach to the differences

@Simone_De_Beauvoir K. It’s unfortunate that our society seems to attach more importance to the biological inclinations of men, than the biological tendencies of women. Up to this point, anyway.

@nikipedia – if in this alternate universe infant girls were not dressed in pink and infant boys in blue thus starting only moments after birth, the lifelong indoctrination of the differences, but nope, I would still think the 6’tall woman is probably going to be a better cherry picker than the 5’3” man. So I don’t buy the biological differences except in a very general sense. And biological does not translate to mental ability which is what we are discussing here. If it did you would not be what you are, a woman in a field that is considered according to your own words dominated by men. (Not sure if that is a direct quote but words to the effect that it is rare for a woman to be in your field.)Computer science doesn’t require a great deal of physical strength and race car driving demands a certain amount of upper body strength but not so much that a healthy female could do not perform. So where does the biology come in, ah yes, translation of brain waves, an absolute science???

This is so circular, let me try again, if you think your studies prove that men are better race car drivers and computer scientists because of whatever, rats in the maze, that is fine with me, I don’t care what you believe. Just don’t try to make me out as a science hater or some kind of fool because I don’t!

The point is, you cannot deny that any young woman reading this is going to have something planted in her head that tells her she either doesn’t like, isn’t going to be good at, or shouldn’t even bother trying certain male dominated fields of endeavor. I think that is sad, actually I think it is totally fucking sad, but I am trying to be civilized, or should I say ladylike. If it weren’t for this kind of thinking I would be a vet today and I wager, a hell of a good one. Too bad 50 years ago the scientific theory of the day was telling us that women were no good at science period!

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: But even if that alternate universe did have a history of sexism… would you then argue that they should try to deny the existence of these differences? Who does that help, really?

@rooeytoo: I certainly agree with your argument that girls should never be discouraged from any career path. All I am trying to say is that it looks like some biological differences exist between men and women that contribute to differences in behavior. This doesn’t make men or women inferior as a whole, and it doesn’t say anything about the prospects of an individual man or women.

But I think we all do ourselves a disservice if we try to pretend those differences do not exist. Based on the existing data it seems clear to me that in some cases, males are at a disadvantage and would benefit from different teaching styles, different environments, and different levels and styles of encouragement. And the same goes for females of our species.

I don’t think you’re a science hater, and I don’t think you’re a fool. I’m sorry your personal experiences have made you so averse to this line of reasoning, but I do hope you will really consider what I’m saying.

@nikipedia again, I never denied any differences – are you guys not reading my comments or something?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think they aren’t hearing your words because they are distracted by your butt. Again. And your point is?

@nikipedia Good questions, good logic, makes perfect sense to me. Thank you.

@Val123 maybe you’re distracted by my butt – that’s okay, I’m flattered..and I already state my point countless times above.

So let me reiterate as well: young women, you can be anything you want to be.

Do not be discouraged or dissuaded by those who assume that you need to have the very same interests as the average of young men. If you are passionate about becoming a racing driver, go for it. You can do it, and you can become very good at it. And the same applies to every other job in this world. There isn’t a single job that is out of reach.

Don’t assume every man who thinks biology could be one of several factors which influences our interests, behavior or our way of thinking is a sexist or naysayer or trying to brainwash other people. I’m certainly not one of them and it’s my observation that among the new generation of (influential) men, the vast majority is telling young women that they can be anything they want to be.

@rooeytoo – I apologize for my overreaction earlier in this thread. I was really upset about one of your posts. I’ve cooled down and I recommend you do the same.

Well said @mattbrowne

@mattbrowne – I never overreacted to anything, I responded to your posts.

Who the hell are you to recommend I cool down? That sounds like a typical paternalistic thing to say. I am your elder and I don’t appreciate your instructions on how to behave.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: I did read your comment… You said that you would be okay with studying sex differences if the alternate universe didn’t have a history of sexism. I am asking: okay, what if it did have a history of sexism? What would be your preference in that case?

Am I still misunderstanding?

“Do not be discouraged or dissuaded by those who assume that you need to have the very same interests as the average of young men.”

I don’t understand that, are you insinuating that I say females have to have the same interests as males? If you are, that is entirely incorrect. I say let women be anything they want, don’t brainwash by saying “you wouldn’t like to drive race cars or be a computer scientist because your brain doesn’t work properly for that job.” And if a man wants to be a nurse or a school teacher or any of the jobs normally thought of as women’s work, let him be what he wants to be, don’t question his masculinity or tell him he does not have the proper brain processes to do it.

@nikipedia I’m okay with studying sex differences in this world too – I just don’t always like what conclusions people draw from a study that is too limited to explain what they need explaining away

@rooeytoo I think all agree with you, and we’re all on the same page. Including Matt.

@Val123 – matt seems to think he has the right to correct my behavior. I resent that. Especially since it is unwarranted.

@rooeytoo Ok. But I just wanted you to know that we all, including Matt, feel the same way that you do concerning this issue. From what I saw, the conversation veered off in to some misunderstandings….

@Val123 – I don’t think words such as this are in unbiased way to tell a young woman she can be anything she wants,

“Do not be discouraged or dissuaded by those who assume that you need to have the very same interests as the average of young men.”

Sounds like saying if you want this, you will be like an average young man, but don’t let that put you off.

Why instead can’t it just be said, try what you want to try, be what you want to be, with no overt or implied judgements attached.

I use power tools every day. I am on a woodworking list, it is amazing how many men actively dissuade women from trying to use power tools, you might hurt yourself, you don’t have the skill. Women aren’t interested in power tools (guess they are like car racing & computer science).

The world is full of people who try to herd others into a nice compact and controllable little niche, I don’t like it and I will continue to try to get my message out and that is make your own niche and ignore those who try to tell you what the scientists or a rat in a maze says you are supposed to be interested in or like.

Are you mattbrowne’s agent, why do you speak for him?

My goodness. No one has to cool down if she or he doesn’t want to. And I only talked about my own overreaction. I can’t help it, but meanwhile I feel stuck in a time machine which carried me back into the 70ies or early 80ies against my will, when the accusations had lots of validity. But things have changed. And I’m getting back to 2009 leaving this debate, because I think whatever I say will make matters worse.

@rooeytoo It’s like it’s like you’re conditioned to see sexism under every rock, and you’re totally misunderstanding Matt’s comments. Matt said, “Do not be discouraged or dissuaded by those who assume that you need to have the very same interests as the average of young men.” I read it a completely different way than you did. I see, “Don’t feel like you have to have the same interests as the average young male.” Then he went on to say you can do and be anything you want.

And @rooeytoo, as I said, we came from the same era. I’ve had my share (and fill) of silly sexism. I like woodworking, remodeling, and stuff like that too. The younger guys don’t think a thing of it. The older guys get all patronizing and crap. Much of it depends on age. I owned a small engine repair shop (a mower shop) for four years, from 02 to 07. Talk about a predominately male environment. And many of our male customers would have been floored if they’d known a woman owned the shop, and not Rick. One old guy in particular, about 30 years older than me, would come in, and if he saw me in the back working on a mower or something, he’d come rushing to the back (ignoring the “no customers beyond this point” sign) and literally pull me away, saying, “This is no work for a woman! You don’t know how to do this stuff!” I was like, WTH??!! Dumbass! Well, as the owner I told my guys “George’s stuff is MINE!” And it was. I did all the work on his mower…and he’d rave on about what good work “the guys” did. :) Every body just nodded and smiled. The younger my mechanics were, the funnier they found it!

My point is, yes it still exists, especially in the older generations. The older they are, the worse it is. The younger guys aren’t thinking like that any more. Matt’s one of the younger guys. You aren’t seeing that he is in complete agreement with your views.

@Val123 otoh, I just can’t help but think ‘where are all these girls that feel as if they have to to like what the ‘average guy’ is doing?’...I mean c’mon, I wish we had that problem

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Well, I never thought of it, but sure. Trying to force a child into a mold of the parent’s preferences happens all the time. There could be girls out there who were or are being raised by rabidly anti-sexist parents, and said parents could be pushing them towards traditionally male interests to satisfy their own (the parent’s) agenda, and don’t allow the girls free reign to pursue their OWN interests, especially if their own interests are in traditionally female areas.

I think the most common example concerns fathers pushing hard for their sons to play a particular sport, when the son has no interest in sports (and getting rabidly homophobic if the boy wants to persue “sissy” things like writing poetry)....Andre Agassi is a prime example of this. I saw an interview on 60 minutes with him. He hates tennis, and always has. He played it because of pressures from his father. He remembers being 5 years old, and his dad had set up a serving machine, and had tweaked it so that it threw balls out at something like, 70 mph. Scared that poor little five year old to death.

So the same thing could happen to girls regarding traditionally male interests, just like it happens to the males. I’ve never seen it, but it’s not impossible. Depends on the parents.

@Val123 again, ‘rabidly anti-sexist’ is a very very good disorder to have and I think very few people suffer from it, too few…from what I understand, as an anti-sexist parent myself, it is very limiting to see the world as one that has male and female interests…this means that we wouldn’t push our boys to do fashion design nor would we push our girls to do woodworkd…you know why? because pushing them to the ‘other side’ doesn’t solve the issue that there is an other side…we need to get rid of what traditionally is considered whatever and let kids choose on their own…but they can’t really choose on their own when all they see in catalogs are a million pink filled pages for girls and truck +train+tool set crap filled pages for boys…it’s so hard for me to shop and find something…I want them to play with dolls and dollhouses and all that but they’re so full of frills and shit that I wouldn’t let any of kids near it no matter the gender…and I want them to play with trucks and all that but I can’t bear to see how dark and army/navy whatever they are…so we pay more for better toys…I don’t have any daughters but my purchasing will not differ for them…

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Well, I think there is a difference between being “anti sexist,” which I am, and ”rabidly anti-sexist.” Being “rabidly” anything is going to cloud your judgment and skew your behavior, usually to the detriment of those around you, including your children. I think I gave some good examples of “rabid” behavior above.

@Val123 – you are still acting as mattbrowne’s mouthpiece and I think his mouth is big enough that he doesn’t need you.

Now you read that phrase of his just one more time and if you can’t see how biased it is, (in a court of law it would be called leading the witness) then I don’t know what else to say because you must be conditioned to avoid seeing what men tell you isn’t really there even if it is…..

“Do not be discouraged or dissuaded by those who assume that you need to have the very same interests as the average of young men.”

That is a far cry from saying to all young people, “Be what you want to be.” If you are female you can be a computer scientist or race car driver, if you are male, you can be a school teacher or nurse without anything telling you that you are different or not equipped to do that job because of your genitalia.” There should be no subliminal or overt messages shoving anyone into a predetermined course in life.

@mattbrowne that is one more patronizing response, but I will ignore it. If you truly think 2009 is intrinsically different in its attitude toward equality in opportunity for both sexes then you would be saying “Be what you want to be” without all the qualifiers stuck on the end. But you seem to be having difficulty, so is the rest of world and trust me, I have been in the work force since the early 60’s and while there are improvements for women, there is by no means parity. If the tax payers money is going into the research that says female brains can’t compute race car driving, it is a complete waste, just let all humans decide what they want to do and let it be. Use the money to find a cure for some horrible disease instead.

K