User Tag List

First 10181920212230 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 301

  1. #191
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Further to comments below about women lacking self-confidence, I'll post this here too:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-broken-robots

    Studies on political ambition in women have routinely shown that women are 'punished' for appearing to be overly agentic, strident and ambitious...and women are also punished for appearing to be overly squishy and communal. Note the word 'appearing.'
    A key issue in stigma and stereotyping is the role of perception on the part of the more powerful group or party-the managers, hiring agents, admissions directors, board members and voters who have the power to advance or halt the progression of a career. And the lower you are on the social hierarchy the more likely you are to be subject to reductive opinions-or at least to be negatively affected by them.

    For instance, women struggling to gain promotions and approval from male bosses or coworkers, particularly those trying to succeed in male-dominated fields, contend with the assumption that they're high on competence but low on warmth (an issue which clearly played out in the Hillary Clinton campaign), while secretaries and stay-at-home moms are presumed to be high on warmth but low on competence.
    ...
    Working mothers are hit with a double whammy. While men with children have been shown to benefit from their parental status, working mothers find themselves suspect for their ambition at the same time that they are presumed less competent. We've all heard the statistic that women make eighty cents to a man's dollar. Childrearing issues aside, recent studies have also shown that both women and men react more negatively to the woman when a male/female pair read an identical script negotiating for a higher salary. The woman might get the raise, but a general malaise or resentment lingers which can have long term consequences for her career.
    Damned if you do.....damned if you don't....
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  2. #192
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salome
    Did you attend a girls' school too?
    There are no girls' school that I know of in Italy - and if there are, they are likely attended by an extremely low % of the whole population. I would suppose similar statistics prevail in most european countries.

    Obv. my personal experience does not matter, but as far as I remember, girls were much better at maths than boys, pretty much starting from primary school.

    That's just one study, and exclusively focussed on 8th grade girls, in a very specific national setting. Very little can be inferrend about a more general pattern.

    I don't think that and don't know why you think I do.
    Lack of encouragment is a binary variable, what I thus wanted to say is: a very large portion of the human population is not encouraged towards developing his-her specific potential, irrespective of gender.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  3. #193
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    That's just one study, and exclusively focussed on 8th grade girls, in a very specific national setting. Very little can be inferrend about a more general pattern.
    Nah. It's common knowledge.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...s-gcse-results
    "It's a question of confidence in the way girls develop. It's cool to be very good at anything in a girls school - maths, sciences or physics. No one will ask why you're doing a boys' subject. Girls who lack confidence can thrive more in girls-only schools.
    UNESCO report
    Research findings suggest that girls do better in certain subject areas such as mathematics and science when boys are not in the class (Robinson and Gillibrand, 2004). In one of the earlier studies, Jimenez and Lockheed (1989) assessed the performance of 3,265 eighth graders in single-sex and co-educational schools in Thailand. Girls in girl-only schools scored higher in mathematics. Boys scored higher than girls in co-educational mathematics classes. These differentials were largely because of peer effects.
    In 2001, the Australian Council for Educational Research after six years of study of more 270,000 students, in 53 academic subjects, showed that boys and girls from single-sex classrooms "scored on average 15 to 22 percentile ranks higher than did boys and girls in coeducational settings.
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Lack of encouragment is a binary variable, what I thus wanted to say is: a very large portion of the human population is not encouraged towards developing his-her specific potential, irrespective of gender.
    That's as maybe, but half the population are actively discouraged or even prevented. Whole different ball game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #194
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    There are no links to the study, just by reading the article it sounds like they are not really using the right econometrics and statistics: the sample for girls going to all-girls school is much smaller, which mean that repeating the study wil likely result in higher variablity. Plus, all-girls school generally contain a smaller sub-section of the whole population that mixed-gender school: there is no way to know in which way the causality actually runs, even if the original educational scores were similar (just an example: girls that are willing to accept going to a same-sex school might be on average more coscentious, or introverted).

    What you quote is just a conjectural comment, I could write something similar aswell, it would be equally irrilevant.

    Plus, same-sex school may perhaps lead to better grades, but if they teach home economics (as you said before) instead of going to the lab, it won't improve their access to STEM subjects.

    That's as maybe, but half the population are actively discouraged or even prevented. Whole different ball game.
    It's really not clear how now, in 2012, women are actively discouraged or prevented towards choosing a STEM university subject. It is clear how they are still victim of a general negative attitude in the workplace when it comes to being hired and obtaining raises, though.

    Anyway, some of the comments to that article are quite interesting:

    From this article and some previous comments it seems that boys need girls to be weladjusted but that girls are more confident without boys. The same conclusion is drawn by research into marriage and its relation to men and women's physical and mental health: men fare better on those fronts when married/ in LT relationship, women fare worse, and are best off when
    1. in a stable job
    2. having a network of good friends, and interests
    3. single.

    This suggests that somehow boys and men (deliberately or unwittingly) make sure they benefit from a mixed environment (school/relationship) while disregarding the effect their behaviour has on the opposite sex. Scary.
    The above described mechanism would be considered similar to what evolutionary biologist call a "self-sacrificing" group selection i.e. certain behaviors which harm individuals (in this case, it would be marriage and companionship for women) are carried forward simply because they are more likely to lead to reproduction, and thus "survive" in this world. The puzzle could then be solved (by women) through implementing an artificial insemination strategy which only allows for women to be born. Although, I'm not sure about the wider social implications.

    It's also a bit depressing to read so many comments which could be summed up as "I went to a mixed/single sex schools, I was academically successful, so I want my kids to do the same"; evidently, academic success does not imply critical thinking skills.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  5. #195
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    There are no links to the study, just by reading the article it sounds like they are not really using the right econometrics and statistics: the sample for girls going to all-girls school is much smaller, which mean that repeating the study wil likely result in higher variablity. Plus, all-girls school generally contain a smaller sub-section of the whole population that mixed-gender school: there is no way to know in which way the causality actually runs, even if the original educational scores were similar (just an example: girls that are willing to accept going to a same-sex school might be on average more coscentious, or introverted).
    You can criticise it however you want to - and you're plainly invested in discrediting it. But the results speak for themselves.

    Plus, same-sex school may perhaps lead to better grades, but if they teach home economics (as you said before) instead of going to the lab, it won't improve their access to STEM subjects.
    No. I said Home Ec instead of metal working. STEM is core curriculum. Metal-working is not.

    It's really not clear how now, in 2012, women are actively discouraged or prevented towards choosing a STEM university subject. It is clear how they are still victim of a general negative attitude in the workplace when it comes to being hired and obtaining raises, though.
    I'm sure if you give it a bit more thought you'll understand how those things might be related.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  6. #196
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    That's a bit of a pitiful way to close a discussion "I won't listen to the criticism, the results speak for themselves". It surely doesn't suit a scientific attitude.

    No. I said Home Ec instead of metal working. STEM is core curriculum. Metal-working is not.
    So? Are these same-sex schools better or worse?
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  7. #197
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    That's a bit of a pitiful way to close a discussion "I won't listen to the criticism, the results speak for themselves". It surely doesn't suit a scientific attitude.
    I will listen to legitimate criticism. Not biased dismissal of facts. Check your own attitude.

    When I say "the results speak for themselves" I mean, if I were a parent of a girl, I would (given the choice) send her to a single-sex school. Speaking from personal experience, as well as looking at the performance of those schools generally - they speak for themselves. It is not necessary to understand why a thing is beneficial to understand that it is beneficial.

    That said, I am interested in the whys too. Hence this thread.

    So? Are these same-sex schools better or worse?
    Better. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  8. #198
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    My criticism is completely legitimate, the causality and statistical problems I speak about are a widespread problem in the social sciences (and I work as a researcher in the social sciences...not that it matters, but I have to read lots of articles on a daily basis, so I know more or less where the problems usually lie). They're even more important when we want to prove a point which has potential policy implications.

    F.e. you would send your girl to a same-sex school looking at results which are afflicted by a potential array of biases.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  9. #199
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Are you suggesting that ALL of these findings are affected by the same "biases"?

    In which case, how does one ever derive value from the social sciences? And I wonder why you would select such a profoundly flawed (in your estimation) field of study.

    Edit. There are many factors I would take into account. But academic results (unsurprisingly) would certainly be amongst them.
    Although this discussion is moot, since I have no intention of having children.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #200
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    The only confusion is yours : you directly contradicted yourself.

    I'm not speculating when I say there is no reason that they should disproportionately affect careers in IT.
    I am not confused. I am able to envision multiple possibilities when I do not have definitive evidence to support one over the other. I sometimes will share these when germane to the topic. Your statement about women in IT may be correct, but so far, it is not supported by much more evidence than mine. If you know of any studies looking at work/family issues in IT vs other STEM careers vs. other fields, I would be interested in reading them. These distinctions have long been of interest to me, both as someone with a STEM career, and as an educational volunteer.

    (There is nothing wrong with speculating, by the way, particularly when it is identified as such.)

    Also, the phenomenon described below is part of what I consider work/family issues:
    Working mothers are hit with a double whammy. While men with children have been shown to benefit from their parental status, working mothers find themselves suspect for their ambition at the same time that they are presumed less competent.
    This is partly rooted in the idea that men have someone at home to take care of family matters, while women will need to deal with such matters themselves, negatively impacting their job performance. I have seen the reality of this play out in workplaces. Women do seem more likely to take time off for a sick child or even parent, or to attend school events, etc. The number of men who do so has increased noticeably since I started working. We are not yet at the point, however, where fathers are just as likely to do this as mothers, and the resulting perception can easily override the reality of an individual woman's (or man's) performance at work. This can be sorted into three related factors:

    1. The expectation that women have primary responsibility for child and family matters;

    2. The reality that these responsibilities are still discharged disproportionately by women;

    3. The perception that a woman is more likely than a man to follow this pattern, and therefore will be less effective as an employee.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 02:12 PM
  2. Why women like to dance?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 03:19 PM
  3. Christopher Hitchens: Why women are still not funny
    By Sniffles in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 02-21-2009, 05:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO