It comes from this journal article that I briefly skimmed through... http://www.human.cornell.edu /hd/up...ir_10-2010.pdf

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.

Again show me the sign "No women allowed". Where did you get it from? I never saw anybody being held back from making their decision simply based on their sex. Just because people like Shanel are easily influenced by their fathers to not do something doesn't tell anything about the society. It just tells you about the person, and how they are afraid to make their own decisions. I know plenty of women who do what they want, marry who they want, getting jobs wherever they want... again what are you talking about? You are saying something about a proof, yet you bring a center-right politically influenced newspaper here. You say personal experience doesn't count. Why not? Do you personally know someone who was not allowed something based on their sex? I want go to your mom, or wife, and ask them, whether or not they were not allowed something based on the single fact that they are women.

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...

I totally call admin abuse on that one, calling me "not inteligent" is fine, yet my message with no personal comments was removed. Not the first time I see admins only removing something they don't like..... just like feminists, Zing!

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

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?)

Although men and women approach problems in different ways, I wasn't trying to say that women have "less biological capability to perform math at high levels."

I was thinking more among the lines that if there is psychological differences, that will lead to different preferences. Different levels of hormones, having some parts of the brain more "stimulated," using the left hemisphere more vs the right hemisphere. I mean, I'm no expert in psychology, but I've read that these differences in the brain do play a role in how decisions are made within the brain.

And about society, look at computer science for example. The media usually portraits programmers under a negative light (awkward, creepy, overweight), a lot of people have this attitude of "oh you're a programmer, you have no life" and a lot of people think it's boring an uninteresting. It has all kinds of misconceptions and stigma. Despite all of these, it's one of the fastest growing careers in numbers. So why is there so many programmers then? The reason is that a lot of them are perfectly comfortable disregarding whatever expectations society has of them.

Originally Posted by Chris23

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.

You know how smug and condescending this sounds? You're right, my 6 year-old self totally should have totally had the foresight and knowledge to refute him. Why, I should have summoned the spirit of Ayn Rand herself to protect me from getting slapped for backtalk.

Do you believe that you are a self-made man? If people told you that you couldn't be an engineer, what allowed you to ignore them?

Originally Posted by Twinkle

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.

Again show me the sign "No women allowed". Where did you get it from? I never saw anybody being held back from making their decision simply based on their sex. Just because people like Shanel are easily influenced by their fathers to not do something doesn't tell anything about the society. It just tells you about the person, and how they are afraid to make their own decisions. I know plenty of women who do what they want, marry who they want, getting jobs wherever they want... again what are you talking about? You are saying something about a proof, yet you bring a center-right politically influenced newspaper here. You say personal experience doesn't count. Why not? Do you personally know someone who was not allowed something based on their sex? I want go to your mom, or wife, and ask them, whether or not they were not allowed something based on the single fact that they are women.

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...

I totally call admin abuse on that one, calling me "not inteligent" is fine, yet my message with no personal comments was removed. Not the first time I see admins only removing something they don't like..... just like feminists, Zing!

Saying something like "show me the sign 'No Women Allowed'" is an extremely ignorant comment. The entire premise of my argument is that the explicit prohibition of women (or any group of people) from a field is not necessary to cause similar effects similar to a prohibiton (obviously this is actually slightly flawed as an outright ban would techniqually result in 0% participation, while the barriers i'm talking about don't result in the same degree of inequality, but you get my point).

Im sure you have some knowledge of segregation of blacks in the US. That environement was caused by a wide range of laws called "Jim Crow Laws"... especially in the early days of their enactment, many of the laws did not specifically ban blacks (or coloureds) from specific activites or what not. For example one law would state something along the lines of, no person shall vote unless they can read the constitution in english or write their own name. Doesn't seem like it's racist at all does it? There was no sign saying "blacks can't vote", but interestingly enough... the law seemed to unequally hurt the ability for blacks to vote than for whites (probably because schools were segregated and the quality of education at black schools was no where near that of whites and thus the % of blacks who were illiterate at the time was much higher than whites)... obviously as time progressed the laws did become more explicit, but the point Im making is an explicit ban is not required to prevent certain people from doing certain things such as entering engineering. And I'm not saying anyone is intentionally preventing women from entering a field of their choice, i'm simply saying the culture that has been fostered has unintentionally contributed to that observation.

Obviously you're going to stick to your "Show me the sign!" argument and there's not much I can do about that...

Originally Posted by Shanel

Do you believe that you are a self-made man? If people told you that you couldn't be an engineer, what allowed you to ignore them?

Doing as you please is not a privilege of being a man. It's something you have to do to prove you are one.

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

Although men and women approach problems in different ways, I wasn't trying to say that women have "less biological capability to perform math at high levels."

I was thinking more among the lines that if there is psychological differences, that will lead to different preferences. Different levels of hormones, having some parts of the brain more "stimulated," using the left hemisphere more vs the right hemisphere. I mean, I'm no expert in psychology, but I've read that these differences in the brain do play a role in how decisions are made within the brain.

And about society, look at computer science for example. The media usually portraits programmers under a negative light (awkward, creepy, overweight), a lot of people have this attitude of "oh you're a programmer, you have no life" and a lot of people think it's boring an uninteresting. It has all kinds of misconceptions and stigma. Despite all of these, it's one of the fastest growing careers in numbers. So why is there so many programmers then? The reason is that a lot of them are perfectly comfortable disregarding whatever expectations society has of them.

I agree there might be a psychological difference that causes those differences, but all evidence up to now indicates that that isn't completely the case (or the lack of evidence I guess)... but there is lots of evidence that suggests that the influence of society (intentional or otherwise) has a large impact on those choices. But I would agree that it's not the only factor, and it does not prevent all women from entering those fields (or men in other fields).

And I'm no pyschologist either... none of what I'm saying is stuff I've come up with or anything. I'm just repeating what other have said on the subject.

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

Although men and women approach problems in different ways, I wasn't trying to say that women have "less biological capability to perform math at high levels."

I was thinking more among the lines that if there is psychological differences, that will lead to different preferences. Different levels of hormones, having some parts of the brain more "stimulated," using the left hemisphere more vs the right hemisphere. I mean, I'm no expert in psychology, but I've read that these differences in the brain do play a role in how decisions are made within the brain.

And about society, look at computer science for example. The media usually portraits programmers under a negative light (awkward, creepy, overweight), a lot of people have this attitude of "oh you're a programmer, you have no life" and a lot of people think it's boring an uninteresting. It has all kinds of misconceptions and stigma. Despite all of these, it's one of the fastest growing careers in numbers. So why is there so many programmers then? The reason is that a lot of them are perfectly comfortable disregarding whatever expectations society has of them.

Well, it's the fastest growing career because of demand, no? I would say that, in the workplace, programmers generally have less expectations placed on them. My fiance is a programmer, and he wanders into work all the time with wrinkled shirts and uncombed hair. He is a person who can disregard what people think of him. That said, he's never gotten shit for being a programmer, and he comes from a wonderful supportive family.

This has been an interesting debate to read! You guys have really focused on the problem of a lack of females in engineering but in my personal opinion this does not really represent a form of gender inequality at this point in time. I agree that there is nothing holding a woman back from becoming an engineer. I believe that the rare cases where a girl's family influences her to not become an engineer do not really represent the view of our society as a whole.

I should also mention that I work at a company where they offer many co-op positions to engineers and in my department there are 4 girls in co-op and 3 boys and overall in the whole company from what I've seen it is very equal.

That being said I do agree that there is gender inequality for both males and females. Just in different cases.

Saying something like "show me the sign 'No Women Allowed'" is an extremely ignorant comment. The entire premise of my argument is that the explicit prohibition of women (or any group of people) from a field is not necessary to cause similar effects similar to a prohibiton (obviously this is actually slightly flawed as an outright ban would techniqually result in 0% participation, while the barriers i'm talking about don't result in the same degree of inequality, but you get my point).
Im sure you have some knowledge of segregation of blacks in the US. That environement was caused by a wide range of laws called "Jim Crow Laws"... especially in the early days of their enactment, many of the laws did not specifically ban blacks (or coloureds) from specific activites or what not. For example one law would state something along the lines of, no person shall vote unless they can read the constitution in english or write their own name. Doesn't seem like it's racist at all does it? There was no sign saying "blacks can't vote", but interestingly enough... the law seemed to unequally hurt the ability for blacks to vote than for whites (probably because schools were segregated and the quality of education at black schools was no where near that of whites and thus the % of blacks who were illiterate at the time was much higher than whites)... obviously as time progressed the laws did become more explicit, but the point Im making is an explicit ban is not required to prevent certain people from doing certain things such as entering engineering. And I'm not saying anyone is intentionally preventing women from entering a field of their choice, i'm simply saying the culture that has been fostered has unintentionally contributed to that observation.

I never see any peer pressure on women in engineering, I should know, Im in engineering. I would like to know what "barriers" you are talking about. If women get pressured on by their families, well don't blame the society, blame crappy parenting and family support.

You are saying we got any of those sexist barriers nowadays too? We have women going to other universities? We have people suggesting that they shouldn't take certain programs, or classes or anything? Granted, there are people on the job market who hire only who they want, based on their personal preference. Wooptie-Doo, guess what, it's their right who to hire and to pay money to, you can't change that.

Originally Posted by Twinkle

Saying something like "show me the sign 'No Women Allowed'" is an extremely ignorant comment. The entire premise of my argument is that the explicit prohibition of women (or any group of people) from a field is not necessary to cause similar effects similar to a prohibiton (obviously this is actually slightly flawed as an outright ban would techniqually result in 0% participation, while the barriers i'm talking about don't result in the same degree of inequality, but you get my point).
Im sure you have some knowledge of segregation of blacks in the US. That environement was caused by a wide range of laws called "Jim Crow Laws"... especially in the early days of their enactment, many of the laws did not specifically ban blacks (or coloureds) from specific activites or what not. For example one law would state something along the lines of, no person shall vote unless they can read the constitution in english or write their own name. Doesn't seem like it's racist at all does it? There was no sign saying "blacks can't vote", but interestingly enough... the law seemed to unequally hurt the ability for blacks to vote than for whites (probably because schools were segregated and the quality of education at black schools was no where near that of whites and thus the % of blacks who were illiterate at the time was much higher than whites)... obviously as time progressed the laws did become more explicit, but the point Im making is an explicit ban is not required to prevent certain people from doing certain things such as entering engineering. And I'm not saying anyone is intentionally preventing women from entering a field of their choice, i'm simply saying the culture that has been fostered has unintentionally contributed to that observation.

I never see any peer pressure on women in engineering, I should know, Im in engineering. I would like to know what "barriers" you are talking about. If women get pressured on by their families, well don't blame the society, blame crappy parenting and family support.

You are saying we got any of those sexist barriers nowadays too? We have women going to other universities? We have people suggesting that they shouldn't take certain programs, or classes or anything? Granted, there are people on the job market who hire only who they want, based on their personal preference. Wooptie-Doo, guess what, it's their right who to hire and to pay money to, you can't change that.

See this is why personal experience is irrelevant. What does it matter if you never see it? You've never seen it, but lots of studies show that it undeniably exists. Science doesn't work on personal expereince, it works on actual evidence...

And no infact it is NOT a right for an employer to hire "who they want" if it's based on age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status etc. etc... Im 100% it happens all the time, but that is most certainly NOT their right (in fact it's illegal...)

Originally Posted by lt93

This has been an interesting debate to read! You guys have really focused on the problem of a lack of females in engineering but in my personal opinion this does not really represent a form of gender inequality at this point in time. I agree that there is nothing holding a woman back from becoming an engineer. I believe that the rare cases where a girl's family influences her to not become an engineer do not really represent the view of our society as a whole.

I should also mention that I work at a company where they offer many co-op positions to engineers and in my department there are 4 girls in co-op and 3 boys and overall in the whole company from what I've seen it is very equal.

That being said I do agree that there is gender inequality for both males and females. Just in different cases.

Statistics don't support your personal experience... I read an interesting article about publishers being presented the same journal articles one with a male author's name and the other with a females and they found more likely than not, the male got more attention. There are also lots of statistics that point out that males are more likely to advance and have higher pay for the same work. Especially in sciences such as physics and chemisty, and in engineering..

But I would agree that at this point in time the problem isn't nearly as bad as it used to be... but it hasn't gone away.

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

Although men and women approach problems in different ways, I wasn't trying to say that women have "less biological capability to perform math at high levels."

On this note, it should be added that mathematics as we know it is primarily a construction of a male-dominated society (for better or for worse). I think that the underrepresentation of women in mathematics is not just due to the social stigma, but also due to the fact that mathematics is, at least at the moment, primarily male-constructed, male-dominated, and male-"run" (in whatever sense mathematics is "run" as a social establishment).

The principles on which establishments are run reflect the powerful classes within the establishments, and this is as true of mathematics (or, more precisely, subsets of mathematics -- it is only that the same trend tends to prevail through the whole discipline as prevails through its subsectors) as it is of any corporate or political organization.

So in this sense, a woman who wants to succeed in mathematics (or in any other male-dominated social institution) needs to "masculinize" themselves and their thought, however subtly they do so. So when we say that "women are not as good at mathematics as men", that is true, to a degree, simply by the definition of "mathematics" as a historically and presently male-dominated institution. That being said, many women have managed to succeed in mathematics as it is, and there's nothing to suggest that women are any worse or any better than men at the basic faculties of mathematics -- it is only the way in which mathematics is put and presented, both publicly and academically, that causes trouble. This makes sense, as it is the facade of the establishment that reflects its base of members.

The same goes for many academic disciplines, and for social institutions in general. This is a principal point of feminist theory that many have conveniently ignored (if anyone is interested, the work of Gayatri Spivak is a good place to start); the explicit signs of discrimination have disappeared (be it against women, against blacks, etc.) but much of the infrastructure of discrimination still remains. We see criticism of the present system in the same style from many disparate sources -- feminists, postcolonialists, ethnic lobby groups, indigenous groups, and so on. For example, a good point on this matter was brought up in one of the TEDx talks at Mac by a faculty member in Indigenous studies -- what's the point of simply having the sign of an indigenous studies program? All it does is give the university some cover from criticism; the infrastructure of discrimination within academia against indigenous culture is still fully intact.

Or even take the case of the study of non-traditional culture within academia. Take, for example, the traditions of many "Buddhist" philosophers from the middle ages in India and SE Asia. Sure, these people practiced some form of Buddhism, but their works also had general philosophical value, and in many cases were scientific or mathematical treatises. As a consequence, these cultural traditions are studied within the context of "religious studies" or "Buddhist studies" or whatever, rather than being incorporated into whatever other discipline they would fit into, independently of their "exotic" provenance.

What if we were to take, say, Newton to be a "Christian" philosopher, as he himself thought his theological work far more important than his physics? Furthermore, as in the case of, say Aryabhata, Bhaskara II and others, what if we were to completely ignore the physics and only focus on the religious work, or to regard the science as a sort of exotic curiosity? Then surely our sciences would not be as developed as they are now.
If we were to use the classifications that we apply to non-traditional cultures (i.e. non-"white male" cultures) to the traditional one, then we wouldn't have the breadth of study we have today.

Mahratta:

I think you're right. Im not sure if you're right in saying that women are not as good at math as men, even in sense that you're speaking to (which from what I understand you're suggesting is not based on biological differences that result in lower intellect or something like that). The ratio between males and females in math is fairly equal in the US at least as that's where I'm getting my stats from (and I'm only speaking to all people who have a degree in math, not their career choice following their education). But I think that's interesting that you're suggesting that the way in which math is presented has a large impact. - What specifically do you think favours one gender over the other?

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

Mahratta:

I think you're right. Im not sure if you're right in saying that women are not as good at math as men, even in sense that you're speaking to (which from what I understand you're suggesting is not based on biological differences that result in lower intellect or something like that). The ratio between males and females in math is fairly equal in the US at least as that's where I'm getting my stats from (and I'm only speaking to all people who have a degree in math, not their career choice following their education). But I think that's interesting that you're suggesting that the way in which math is presented has a large impact. - What specifically do you think favours one gender over the other?

First, I mean researchers, profs, etc. In those cases, the ratio of male to female is highly skewed. In terms of enrolment in university (which is what you are talking about), it is far more even, but most female math students go on to some socially mandated profession for females, like teaching math in highschool, or working in finance, or whatever.

I'm not saying that women are not as good at mathematics outright. People tend to be good at some thing X when the way they think overlaps significantly enough with the way that the powerful classes within the establishment X think. This depends on a number of factors, all of which can be summed up as "upbringing". Of course, gender is in many cases a determining factor in upbringing -- parents, family, society think that a girl ought to be brought up differently than a boy in many cases. That said, there are hundreds/thousands/many other factors, which are significant to varying degrees depending on the situation.

With mathematics, it seems significant to note that it has historically been and continues to be male-dominated, hence gender seems more significant a factor than, say, race (although race is still somewhat important). Another important factor is income, but the debate isn't about that.

There's nothing about "favouring" explicitly -- we should avoid falling into the trap of "blaming" some faction or the other. I think that, at least explicitly, most academic communities are fairly egalitarian. In fact, the so-called "encouragement" given to female students of math may be worse than leaving the situation alone. It merely reinforms society that women have not done mathematics historically, and that it takes a special sort of woman to be a mathematician, which is untrue.