And Chris23... read exactly what I said. Like actually read it, and you'll see I've made myself quite plain that treating people fairly and respectfully is not the same as equally, and the equality that people strive for is not the dictionary definition of the word (which goes back to my original point, "equal" is not the right word for this discussion)

this^ nailed it twinkle!

Originally Posted by Twinkle

Well, yeah, there's always double standards, and there's always double standards in looking for equality, simply because people never have enough equality.... ahem, feminists.

If this is serious, I think you should look past the media's portrayal of feminism, as that is not the only type of it. Instead of seeing the "radicals", perhaps you should expand your horizons to include the less radical, more academic versions of feminism that are out there. Trust me, feminism is a serious movement that is unfortunately being destroyed by their portrayal in the media.

Chris, "equality" does not mean treating everyone as though they are exactly the same. If you do that it's asking people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while simultaneously ignoring any privileges you may have had. The playing field is certainly not level. We still live in a world where little girls are told they must meet certain roles and expectations. I, for example, always wanted to be an electrician like my father. But he would always demean my interest and decry my lack of "femininity". He would always try teaching my brother instead, but he never cared. Today my brother works in journalism (something my father initially hated). I got my BSc, but I doubt I will ever hold an interest in being an electrician again.

Say I graduated with an engineering degree, and I went to look for job. How many people out there do you think hold similar attitudes to my father? Quite a few I bet, women included. Things are getting better, but they are far from perfect.

One good example of an inequality that was chalked up to men naturally being better is orchestral hiring. According to the people hiring, women simply have worse technique. Yet, when they began using screens to hide the gender of the person auditioning, the number of women making it through increased dramatically. The article is 11 years old, so who knows what the number is now.

Obviously, you can't conceal a potential hire's identity in most other situations. But when hiring managers are aware of ethnicity, sex, handicaps, etc., then one is at the mercy of their biases. The only thing you can do to counteract that is have policies that encourage hiring of minorities. The Ontario College of Teachers is looking to increase the number of male teachers. One of their recommendations is to have he principal "provide opportunities in which all students have the ability to work with that [male] teacher" Is it creating an inequality to have extra attention given to this teacher? No. New female teachers don't need the help because they are the norm in this profession. They will have plenty of female mentors to choose from and they probably won't have to deal with parents thinking they're pedophiles or something. Given this it would not be right to say that more women are "simply" going into teaching and that there's therefore no inequality. And male teachers matter because children need role models of both genders.

Regarding feminism, I agree with J. Dorey. I have no problem calling myself a feminist. The stereotype of greedy, man-hating bra-burners is boring and it really needs to go away. Feminism is very much needed today. Anyone remember the discussion we had on SlutWalk awhile back? There were plenty of crappy attitudes that reared their ugly heads in that thread. On a global scale, look at what's happening with the Republican party and their constant attacks on women. In Canada we already had one annoying backbencher try to reopen the abortion debate; I doubt that will be the end of it.

It's obvious that Twinkle isn't a very intellegent individual... but why was his comment removed? He didn't say anything that was "hateful" (not that I believe that is grounds for censorship either). His comment was stupid, but by no means worthy of censorship...

And Shanel and J. Dorey I agree with both of you, except with one point that was made by Shanel that "childen need role models of both genders"...I don't know if that's 100% true, children of gay couples for example would go against that grain and don't show any meaningful differences based on being exposed to only one gender of parent. But I do agree that in terms of children being able to identify someone "like them" in a profession is important for them to pursure that profession.

Shanel, you cant blame the rest of the world that you let your dad talk you out of being an electrician. If you wanted to go into that profession, you would have shown the dedication and commitment that is required to achieve that success regardless of what other people said. Sounds more like you just werent willing to stand up to your dad for what you wanted.
Amardeep, theres some people on these forums that reports the stupidest comments posted on here, either a) because it makes them appear foolish and shoots down their own opinions or b) because they dont have a good response so they want the comment taken away.
I have found that mods are extremely harsh in the content they allow on here. If someone asks a stupid question, they are going to get a stupid answer in return. Likewise, if someone makes a point in an arguement that is completely wrong, why shouldnt someone be allowed to correct it. The censorship on here has confused me recently. Keep it up Twinkle!!!

Chris23, your first point is right and wrong imo... I don't like the "personal expereince" evidence. It's meaningless to me, but there are mountains of evidence that show that societies attitudes towards any groups play a large role in what the members of that group do. You don't have to like it, or accept it but the fact is if a girl is growing up with a barrage of messages that say "girls act like this and don't do this" (obviously they aren't explicit, but you at least should accept that even unintentional messages have a large impact), they are going to be heavily influenced by those messages.

Lets pretend that you're right (which by what you're saying means that society's attitudes do not influence people's choices), what do you propose the reason that females are extremely under represented in engineering is? An answer like "dudes like to build stuff" is quite obviously stupid... But I look forward to a better more intellegent answer that you can provide.

You are right in the sense that the public opinion of course influences the feelings we have towards the choices we have to make in our lives, but that doesnt mean people have to succumb to the opinions of others. It comes down to a persons drive to be independant and live their lives the way they want to.
In regards to your point on women in engineering, yes there arent as many girls in my engineering class as guys, but not once have I ever heard one of them say that they didnt want to be there because of what other people have said. In my opinion, if a girl or guy for that matter, chooses not to go into a field just because they do not fit that field's stereotypical mold, then they never had the drive in the first place to succeed in that field. There are always going to be people in the world that tell you you cant do something, it comes down to how determined you are in yourself and your own abilities. If a girl wants to be an engineer, there are no barriers blocking her from becoming one, all admissions into the programs are free of bias. I still stand by what i said that just because someone, be it a family member or someone else in society, tells you you cant do something, doesnt mean you should give up on it. And sadly that is exactly what it seems was the case in Shanel's story

You still didn't answer my question... you simply pointed out what you believe girls should do if they want to go down a specific career path.

There is an obvious fact that females are under represented in engineering fields. Why is that?

From this: "In my opinion, if a girl or guy for that matter, chooses not to go into a field just because they do not fit that field's stereotypical mold, then they never had the drive in the first place to succeed in that field."

it sounds like you're suggesting that females just don't have an innate "drive" to be successful in engineering... I know that's not what you meant (or hope anyways), but I'm just trying to point out the absurdity to think that just because there are no "actual" (note the quotations) barriers to specific groups finding their way into specific fields doesn't mean that there aren't barriers. Whether you want to accept it or not, soceities attitudes are just as much a barrier as a law that discouraged females from entering engineering.

Just like you most likely never thought of entering nursing or midwifery, nor did I for that matter, I mean it's understood in our society that those programs for girls, while engineering and physics are for boys. And the people hiring in those fields believe the same thing. There have been many studies to show that women will recieve less attention in various ways in science and engineering (ex. two identical articles published with different names for the author, one female one male will show that the male author gets more attention)... That's another barrier to women getting into the field even if they have all the proper education for it (such as an undergrad degree in engineering).

But maybe I'm wrong... in which case, answer my question. Why are women severly under represented in engineering fields?

Simple answer, BECAUSE MORE GUYS CHOSE TO GO INTO THE FIELD. you seem to have this train of thought that engineering and physics are a "guys field" while nursing and midwifery are a "girls field". Plain and simple, I didn not go into nursing or midwifery because those programs did not interest me. NOT BECAUSE IM A GUY, BECAUSE I DONT FIND THEM INTERESTING. There is no reason why women are under represented in engineering. You are having a severe case of tunnel vision in thinking that its strictly gender barriers keeping women out of engineering or keeping men out of nursing. People are free to do what they want and ill say it again, if someone doesnt go into a field because they are afraid of not being taken seriously, THEY DONT BELONG THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. It shows a severe lack of self confidence and if you dont expect to be taken seriously, no one is going to show you the respect.
Also, look back to the quote you cited where you claim im stating that women dont have the drive to be in engineering. NEVER did i state in that quote that women dont have the drive to be in engineering. I said that both men and women who succumb to the fear of not being accepted into ANY FIELD, likely dont have the drive to succeed in that field. So before you go quoting me again, lets try not completely twisting my words to appease your arguements.

I guess I asked the wrong question... When I asked why are there more males, I guess I meant to ask Why do more males choose those fields than females. There obviously must be a reason... otherwise you would expect a more balanced ratio. So my question really was, what's that reason. You still have not answered it. I've provided a reason, that is supported by evidence, but perhaps I'm wrong and you can share your reason.

And the same goes for the males in nursing, or midwifery (in fact there's one registered male midwife in Canada http://www.theglobeandmail.c om/new...rticle4184592/).

Read my last post carefully... I never attributed that quote to you, I suggested that what you had said implied that, and then I even went a bit further and made it clear that I do not believe that's what you meant. So before accusing others of "twisting [your] words to appease [my] argument" perhaps read a bit more carefully?

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

I guess I asked the wrong question... When I asked why are there more males, I guess I meant to ask Why do more males choose those fields than females. There obviously must be a reason... otherwise you would expect a more balanced ratio. So my question really was, what's that reason. You still have not answered it. I've provided a reason, that is supported by evidence, but perhaps I'm wrong and you can share your reason.

And the same goes for the males in nursing, or midwifery (in fact there's one registered male midwife in Canada http://www.theglobeandmail.c om/new...rticle4184592/).

Read my last post carefully... I never attributed that quote to you, I suggested that what you had said implied that, and then I even went a bit further and made it clear that I do not believe that's what you meant. So before accusing others of "twisting [your] words to appease [my] argument" perhaps read a bit more carefully?

Could it just simply be that we're different psychologically, leading people to make different choices?

Also, you make two different arguments. On one hand you say "There is no reason why women are under represented in engineering"... in the very next sentance you state that I have tunnel vision in "thinking that its strictly gender barriers keeping women out of engineering or keeping men out of nursing"... all the while previously you admitted that there were societal attitudes that deter specific people from entering certain fields...

You seem to understand that when the ratio between males and females in many fields is way off from equal that there are likely reasons for the ratio... but you pretend that none of those things actually matter, flying in the face of evidence that it obviously does (and you have also admitted that!)...

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

Could it just simply be that we're different psychologically, leading people to make different choices?

Yes! That's very likely what Chris thinks (not that he's explicitly stated it), but from what he's said I'm assuming that's what he things (but I could very well be wrong seeing as I'm just guessing)...

But some studies have gone into that question, specifically spatial memory in mathematics. Even if it were true that women do have less biological capability to perform math at high levels that engineering requires (which is what some serious studies have found), it is not the reason why women are not found in engineering very much. If it was, you wouldn't expect something like 45% of all undergrads in math in the US being women and something like 30% of PhD's in math being women (there's an obvious reason why PhD's in all subjects would be less for women - traditionally the male is the "breadwinner" and thus the female is less likely to pursure further education)...

So no, I don't think that psychological differences between males and females lead to different choices (as in an innately biological reason anyway, i mean wouldn't culture and society make an impact on psychological aspects of both males and females?)