1661

50 years ago fields like Psychology and Veterinary medicine were overwhelmingly male, now they are overwhelmingly female while fields like Math and engineering have stayed predominantly male. Why? Were the men in the former fields proto-feminists while the ones in the latter were and remain sexist pigs? Seems silly to me to suggest that innate preferences among women don’t play a major role.

On innate brain differences between the sexes:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5308634_Fetal_testoterone_and_autistic_traits

1662

Your own example suggests that preferences among women are not innate. Otherwise, how could interest in psychology and medicine change after only 50 years?

As for interest in math and engineering: let’s see what happens in the next fifty years. It would be quite surprising to find changes in all scientific fields to proceed in lockstep. Psych and medicine achieved parity first, but that doesn’t mean they will be the last.

On innate brain differences between the sexes

This is a classic example of the sort of scientific study that people cite when trying to support innate differences between the sexes. And like pretty much all the other studies that try to link human physiology to behavior, it shows greater within-gender differences than between-gender differences.

Just look at the huge overlap between boys and girls in Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the Baron-Cohen paper. The paper is telling you that the behavior of the vast majority is gender-indistinguishable.

1663

I might add that even if there were significant differences and less overlap between the genders it would still be wrong to discriminate based on gender, so it’s kind of immaterial.

1664

50 years ago college enrollment was 61% male, now it is 57% female. All those women had to go somewhere, they chose to enter fields like medicine and psychology.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.10.asp

By the way, how do you explain the huge gender gap that now exists between female and male college enrollment?

As for interest in math and engineering: let’s see what happens in the next fifty years. It would be quite surprising to find changes in all scientific fields to proceed in lockstep. Psych and medicine achieved parity first, but that doesn’t mean they will be the last.

Parity? Women are earning PhDs in Psychology at a 3 to 1 ratio over men. That is not parity, that is domination. You are not going to achieve parity in STEM numbers without women not choosing to enter the fields they now totally dominate.

This is a classic example of the sort of scientific study that people cite when trying to support innate differences between the sexes. And like pretty much all the other studies that try to link human physiology to behavior, it shows greater within-gender differences than between-gender differences. Just look at the huge overlap between boys and girls in Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the Baron-Cohen paper. The paper is telling you that the behavior of the vast majority is gender-indistinguishable.

You might as well point out that skin tone affects socioeconomic status, and females have been shown to have slightly lighter skin tone than males. It’s the same problem: the difference is way too small to have any broader explanatory value.

I am of course not denying there is overlap. There are women who choose to enter STEM fields just as there are men who choose to enter Psychology and Education. However, to claim that the few remaining male dominated fields are the product of gender discrimination while the female dominated fields are not, particularly when overall there is a huge gender gap at colleges in favor of women? Sorry, it’s simply not credible.

1665

No, they are choosing to enter all STEM fields at increased rates. Some have just achieved parity before others, which is only natural. And of course achieving parity in a field is a precondition to dominating it.

Fraction of Bachelor’s Degrees Earned by Women, by Major

150115_FractionOfWomenByMajor.jpg720×540

However, to claim that the few remaining male dominated fields are the product of gender discrimination while the female dominated fields are not, particularly when overall there is a huge gender gap at colleges in favor of women? Sorry, it’s simply not credible.

And I think it’s not credible to claim that innate gender characteristics are keeping women out of some fields, when their enrollment continues to increase across all scientific fields.

1666

The purge meme truly is out of control. No matter what you have done previously, no matter how big your contribution, or how perfect your politics, one single line or opinion out of place and you will be attacked, demonised, smeared and excluded.

Tatchell is one of the key LBGT campaigners in the world, and has been at the forefront of LGBT campaigning/legislation since the Sixties. He is no slactivist, and has inserted himself into unsafe spaces and engaged in direct action for decades, you can google his history and see the blood he has literally shed. His work is fundamental to the equality legislation in place today. He has gone from a hate figure to a national treasure. Even where he has taken stances he has shown himself to be able to readdress his views having opened himself to differing opinions.. His support of free speech is based on his experience in campaigning, without it we would not be where we are today.

Yes, this particular incident is based around the NUS officer, but the larger story draws in many issues raised previously, and her attacks are worded exactly like the usual attacks. She accused him of being a racist, and a transphobe.

The racist accusation is born from his views and highlighting homophobia in Africa, his work with LGBTS in Africa, his protest of homophobia in the Jamacian ragga scene, and his statements on homophobia in Islamic countries, and his work supporting Muslim LGBTs. How can a gay man campaigning for LGBT issues be racist? In their eyes it is simple, he condemned the actions of homophobic non-whites. If he uses critical language against non-whites he is labelled a racist as he is white.

He is labelled a transphobe as he was co-signatory on a letterdefending free speech published in the Guardian.

This is not for his views on trans people, he is a campaigner for trans rights, but this is due to him supporting the right of a faction of feminists to state their views on trans people, even though he condemns their views and does not support them.
Dunt strips away the obfuscation in play around this issue, and highlights the underlying issue.

These accusations are the tried and true system of shutting up political opponents in the world of identity politics. Anyone making the case for free speech or expressing an opinion contrary to those of the censors is subject to an intense, widespread and vitriolic attack. They are branded racists, transphobes, bigots, and sexists. They are told they are unsafe to women or ethnic minorities.

This has two effects: the first is libellous, or rather it would be if the subjects of these hate attacks had the money to pursue it. For many of them, who work in these areas politically and socially, it significantly damages their standing among people they spend time with and can cause incredible damage to their careers. The second is emotional: no normal person can bear the abuse, which often goes on for days on Twitter. They learn to shut up, to stop expressing themselves, to back away. They are silenced by the angry mob.

Either way, the end result is the same as no-platforming. It doesn’t matter that Cowling’s letter is only about herself. By trying to turn Tatchell into a symbol of racism and transphobia she is telling anyone sympathetic with those campaigns not to share a platform with him either

His feed today is testament to the vitriol generated by these people. Non-stop attacks and accusations of racism and transphobia, They are also insisting that despite his statements of numerous attempts to engage with the officer privately with the officer and with the NUS HQ, that he is responsible for harassment against the NUS Officer who despite being an adult and elected officer of an organisation with hundreds of thousands of members, is now a victim of oppression and has had to retreat into a safe space. They are also claiming that despite her online history showing years of public engagement as the NUS LGBT Officer, that Tatchell put in her danger by outing her to her parents.

When someone valued, someone who has put in years of work and dedication to a community is suddenly attacked, vilified and purged because they said the wrong name, or stated a differing opinion, or was friends with the wrong person, then people should be standing up saying that enough is enough.

1667

From your own chart, female enrollment in STEM fields peaked a decade ago, and have not increased in the last decade in spite of all kinds of efforts by schools, politicians and business leaders to try to drive up women’s enrollment in those fields.

1668

Malathor - Are you just throwing stuff up and hoping something will stick? The first PNAS paper is pretty much the only relevant reference and they over represent their data. Most of the differences in responses to their survey questions were well within the standard deviation. The paper linked after that is just an abstract so the data can’t be evaluated.

Most everything else is is tangential at best. The college data actually works against your thesis since it suggests that there should be even more qualified women available for advancement.

1669

Now who is seeing what they want to see? There is an obvious and unmistakeable upward trend over time. The correlation is far stronger than any in the papers you keep citing.

1670

That’s not what he’s saying though, he’s not talking about such broad, bland things as “being a good person”, he’s talking about a range of specific things you can raise your child to be. We instantly recognize something like “raising my child to be a violinist” as …pushy? A bit suspect? Not necessarily a bad thing, but just mildly arousing of suspicion. Again, with “non-smoker”, he’s pointing out that that could have negative consequences in terms of rebellion later on - which is part of the reason why the NORMAL LIBERAL IDEA is that you raise your child to be “whatever they want to be” - i.e. you raise them by presenting them a sense of the options available, let them try things out, and see what sticks.

In contrast to this, there’s a cultural get-out clause for religions. “I’m raising my child as a Catholic” doesn’t seem quite so weird, it’s kind of socially acceptable, because religions have a long history of indoctrinating children as being somehow socially acceptable.

“Raising my child to be … a Communist, a Fascist, a feminist, etc.” is equally suspect. But you won’t notice that if you automatically assume that “feminism” = “a good thing” on account of its dictionary definition.

And this is why positing the dictionary definition is fatuous. We all know the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition of Communism was that it was democratic.

How did that turn out?

Is it possible he is just saying something that resonates with you personally rather than saying something that is broadly true?

No, I was never pushed into anything as a child :)

TBH you and he seem to be tilting at windmills.

It may seem like that, but from our point of view, we’re early-warning systems :)

1671

Indeed.

Again, the problem is with ideology per se - it’s all very well to have speculative, over-arching ideas like “Patriarchy theory” - indeed, there may be some grain of truth to it (in fact a more fruitful approach would probably be in terms of the science of memetics).

The problem is that when an ideology gets to the stage that all evidence only further confirms the theory, and no evidence can potentially disconfirm the theory, then you get to a stage where it’s no longer possible for moderates within a movement to draw a moderate line INTERNALLY WITHIN THE IDEOLOGY.

They can’t defend themselves against the extremists in terms of the theory itself. That’s when you get the descent into kafakaesque hell, and that’s when you get people who have genuinely evil intent able to take over the movement.

1672

What about a capitalist? Is that good gurugeorge? In any case if you take feminism to be the philosophy that women should be treated equally to men, then this is exactly what all people should raise their children to understand. Because some internet crank is layering his paranoia and prejudice over that message should not really be of interest.

No, I was never pushed into anything as a child :)

Oh you didn’t have to do homework or chores or otherwise learn the value of hard work? How about politeness and respect for your elders? Anything like that? No?

It may seem like that, but from our point of view, we’re early-warning systems :)

Where you see giants, everyone else sees windmills. That should be your early warning right there.

1673

It would be just as questionable for a person to say, “I’m raising my son as a capitalist”. Obviously.

In any case if you take feminism to be the philosophy that women should be treated equally to men, then this is exactly what all people should raise their children to understand. Because some internet crank is layering his paranoia and prejudice over that message should not really be of interest.

“If you take” - but why should you take? Is there something about dictionary definitions that automagically makes ideologies actual embodiments of words? Did that work for Communism?

“If you take” feminism to be the philosophy that women should be treated equally to men, then feminism should have no problem with men’s rights advocates, since men’s rights advocates want to see men treated equally to women. A=B is the same as B=A, right?

Oh you didn’t have to do homework or chores or otherwise learn the value of hard work? How about politeness and respect for your elders? Anything like that? No?

Are those ideologies?

1674

I love the whole “but what about my rights” argument. Guess what. Most of those people who are looking for “special treatment” are just trying to attain the rights and privileges that white males have had for centuries. You guys act like women and minorities and gays have already done that and now they are dipping into your coffers. So then you start trotting out genetics and inherent psychological traits to deny that any further progress needs to be made.

Have fun in your bunkers as the world progresses around you.

1675

I love this argument because it’s such an easy way to identify the people who are oblivious, either via ignorance or wishful thinking, of the actual status quo.

If you want to reduce it to a simple mathematical description, here’s a more accurate one.

We want A to equal B.

A is much less than B.

What side should we add to?

1676

When I went through my divorce and subsequent custody battle, an MRA group offered to represent me pro bono. Legal fees are expensive, and I’m not rich. Their pitch about men frequently getting short shrift in these things rang true to my mind, so I started looking into the details not only of their organizations but also how the systems I would complain about actually worked. In my state, the non-custodial parent takes a bath in the vast majority of cases regardless of gender when it comes to child support. Likewise, the primary income provider for the time the marriage was intact gets hammered with alimony regardless of gender. In each case, it’s set up with the defaults to make it as easy as possible for the parent in need. It just so happens that men tend to be the ones paying more often than not thanks to our wonderful society and its built-in hegemony of man. In cases where custody was in dispute, the parent that worked less was more likely to gain custody (they were the primary caregiver). There was about a 6% (53% to 47%) advantage attributable to women at that time, but it varied from judge to judge (oddly with no consistent gender bias for them - female judges were not any more likely to defer to mothers). That was over 15 years ago, and from what I’ve gathered things have become more even with time.

The MRA group, however, was talking about the horrors being inflicted upon men by the “feminist agenda.” It just didn’t add up. It was traditionalist views - not feminist views - that held the mother as the default superior caregiver. They wanted a platform to spew hate against the creep of modernity, and were asking me to make my divorce such a platform. I declined the offer (I also won my case, fwiw).

1677

Besides the fact that you seem to ascribing some sinister meaning to “ideology”, you said you were never pushed into anything as a kid. Clearly that is not true. Our parents mold us as best they can to (hopefully) be good people and be ready for the world and society we are entering.

Ideologies like humanism and egalitarianism, which feminism is a de facto subset of, should be fundamental to a truly free society, and were I to have a child I would certainly strive to instill those values in them.

The idea that teaching your children good values increases the chance they will rebel against those values is absurd.

1678

Children tend to rebel against dogma and rules, not attitudes. Attitudes children observe in their parents are more likely to get copied and internalized. Or to put it another way, children will do as you do, not as you say.

So depending on how the values are taught it’s possible both sides of this debate are right.

1679

Thank you for sharing that story, Dan_Theman.

1680

I’m always happy if my pain can ever provide a little good in the world, even if it’s just as the occasional cautionary tale, lol. It makes it seem a bit more worthwhile to make it through.