There was a recent debate on British television between Milo Yiannopoulos and Emily Grossman on Sexism in Science. I have no idea why Yiannopoulos was even invited; he’s got no qualifications at all to be talking about this stuff. I guess he was the representative for sexism, while Grossman was there to represent science.
A very short summary:
Grossman: Hunt’s remarks were irresponsible in fields still afflicted with a serious gender imbalance, science is an environment in which we’re trying to dispel historical stereotypes that discourage women from entering, etc.
Yiannopoulos: Gender essentialism, biological determinism, men’s brains and women’s brains are different, there may be a scientific basis to why women don’t succeed as well in science. Blech, puke, argle-bargle.
Stop right there. The ‘debate’ should have come to a screeching stop the instant Yiannopoulos started babbling lies and nonsense, but I’m just amazed his eyeballs didn’t pop out of his face from all the irony pressure in his skull.
Think about this: Yiannopoulos is arguing that men’s and women’s brains are different, and men are intrinsically better at the science stuff. But Yiannopoulos is a college dropout, twice over, has no background in science at all (just like he has no background in gaming, either, but then no amount of ignorance will stop him from plowing on). It’s not clear what he studied in college, but it seems to have been journalism or English, not science. His male brain seems to be trained in muckracking, lying, and hackery.
Meanwhile, here’s the female brain of Dr Emily Grossman:
I am an expert in molecular biology and genetics, with a Triple First in Natural Sciences from Queens’ College Cambridge and a PhD in cancer research. I also trained and worked as an actress and I now combine my skills in my work as a science communicator and broadcaster; explaining science for a wide range of TV and radio programmes and at live events. I teach all three science subjects and maths at all academic levels (I have taught in two London schools and tutored over 180 private students) and I also work as a freelance communication skills trainer.
I suspect that Mr Yiannopoulos is overcompensating. He’s an ignoramus, but if he yells loud enough about men’s brains he gets to pretend he’s scientifically inclined, as a side-effect of having a penis.
Furthermore, he’s benefitting from the misogynist culture he cultivates. Grossman has been targeted by assholes on Twitter, and strangely enough, the usual suspects are not coming along to deplore the ongoing “witch hunt”. Don’t bother reading the youtube comments; it’s swarming with idiots declaring that he defeated a “fembot” with logic and science, which is weird. Yiannopoulos can declare that women are encouraged and privileged and pushed into science, and when Grossman rightly points out that that makes no sense when only 20% of physics professors are women, he and his acolytes just use that to argue for more gender essentialism, like this bozo:
Only 20% of girls are a level physics students. BECAUSE girls don’t like physics. They are not being pushed out, they are not becoming physicists because they have no interest in it. Well, the 80% that don’t, at any rate.
“girls don’t like physics”. Yeah, sure, that’s science.
Just curious, but is Sky News in the UK like Fox News in the US? Because it makes no sense to have even invited Yiannopoulos to talk about this subject — he has no background in it, his male brain is patently inferior, and his only qualification seems to be a willingness to babble confidently about his ignorance. He’s nothing but a Breitbartian loudmouth, all ego and no expertise, but apparently modern media like that sort of bullshit.
Yes. It’s a Murdoch propaganda organ.
Sky is one of Rupert Murdoch’s enterprises, but it’s not so blatantly right-wing as your Fox News is.
I was completely unsurprised to see one of the abuse tweets sent to Dr. Grossman had “#gamergate” attached to it. I guess it’s the go-to hashtag for internet misogyny?
If you’re an academic on Twitter it’s really interesting to watch the fedora patrol come into contact with actual working scientists, who by and large don’t believe any of the bollocks they spout about women in science. I got to watch Milo foolishly draw swords with one of the more respected researchers in my field the other week, and he as dismantled in short order.
Makes sense. A credible news org wouldn’t bring in Yiannopoulos as a source for anything.
Also: I thought that Cook’s defense was that it was all just a joke that had been blown out of proportion? Isn’t someone going around arguing that “women need to be in separate labs” is a good idea just massively counterproductive from his perspective?
@4: That’s something I’ve noticed a lot amongst Mr Hunt’s defenders: the simultaneous assertion that (a) it’s OK because he was only joking, and (b) anyway it’s true.
Pick one, guys. Using both at once makes you look insincere.
Waaaait… did he honestly open with “we hear this a lot from scientists” before going on to expound upon what is actually supported by science? Because, you know, scientists can’t science! I can only agree with Dr Grossman’s “are you fucking shitting me, you ignorant pseudo-journalist?” expression.
Damn it, italics! You have failed me for the last time!!
As people have said, Sky News is Murdoch Central in the UK; they’ve been engaged in a constant fight to try and get the BBC shut down by various governments over the years (and very nearly succeeded in 2011, just before the phone hacking scandal erupted).
Milo is one of those reliable bellwethers of ‘who don’t I agree with?’ – if you see him hitch his wagon to a particular cause, you can be absolutely certain that it’s the wrong side to be on (not unlike James Delingpole).
(Milo also has previous form for some rather shady business practices. A bit of an opportunist, really.)
The best part of the video is the look on Grossman’s face while Milo is yammering on. It’s pretty much the perfect, “you can’t be serious” look while he yaps about gender essentialism.
I’m pacifist almost to the point of absurdity…and still i keep fantasizing about slapping this smug little fucker…
What on earth is he doing talking about science?
I am so sorry for Grossman that she had to endure that steeming pile of shite…and thanx to her for being a decent human being aswell as a qualified scientist.
Someone should put Milo and Chuck C. Johnson in a room together and the combined smug contrarianism would open a black hole just big enough to suck them both in.
Yeah, he can’t let her get a word in edgewide. Because we all know that the best scientist is the one who can yell loudest.
Funny. I listened to that youtube video and I thought she lost because basically what she seemed to be saying was that in order to compete in science, girls are different than boys and need to be educated differently. Which isn’t all that different from what Hunt said.
Man brain mathed wrong.
So 20% of girls are in physics? Why do females/feminine-gendered-folks love physics so much? Physics makes my masculine-gendered male brain hurt.
@13 Chris61
Saying that there need to be cultural changes to eliminate the existing cultural biases, which obviously involves change sin education, is diametrically different to saying men and women are just biologically different and nothing you can do will change that. Grossman is directly contradicting the unscientific, prejudiced nonsense that falls off Yiannopoulos’ mouth. If you think theirpositions are in anyway similar, you are not using your brain.
Chris61: Yeah, you thought, but you aren’t very bright so you thought wrong.
A credible news org wouldn’t bring in Yiannopoulos as a source for anything.
Do American “news” organizations even WANT to be credible anymore?
Why he’s a journalist AND an entrepreneur! Therefore, he must know everything. QED. Plus, he’s got the hair.
I got this far into PZ’s post:
and my brain immediately engaged “Incoming Bullshit” mode. It’s unbelievable that this guy gets so much time on the media. I mean, I have to believe it, because it’s happening, but ….
@ Gilliel, 12:
IT WORKS IN COMMENT SECTIONS TOO!!!!!! Wait, no it doesn’t.
YES IT DOES!!!!! YOU’RE JUST NOT USING ENOUGH EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn goggles do nothing.
Remember, these are the same people that give Anjem bloody Choudray all the air time he can manage…
Yiannopoulos is mainly employing Gish Gallop with a touch of shouting over Grossman when she manages to get a word in edgeways with a substantive response. A better interviewer than Kay Burley would not let him get away with it, but unfortunately Sky editors seem to mistake aggression for incisiveness, and scattershot questioning for dynamism.
Grossman did well to contain her contempt as well as she did. I don’t think she was ever going to be able to persuade gamergaters, lacking as she does the ability to command authority over them via either the necessary physical and psycho-sexual attributes or demure deference to manhood. Which is why news outlets need to fairly represent the consensus of experts, rather than balancing the sides by pitching reality against outlandish contrarianism.
Perhaps it is unfair to accuse Sky of journalism – infotainment for the mild-to-moderately bigoted is probably a better description. (Everyone else would just consider it to be biased, low-quality churnalism, although not necessarily biased in the same direction, depending on one’s perspective.)
Thing is, Yiannopoulos’ conclusions don’t even follow from his premises.
Let us assume for sake of argument that most girls don’t have an aptitude for science. It does not follow from that that there isn’t also misogyny in science that helps drive out whatever girls do have an aptitude for science. The two are not mutually exclusive. And by driving out the women that do have an aptitude for science, science is depriving itself of the contributions they would otherwise have made. Science (and society) is poorer for having lost those contributions. So even if most women would have gone into different fields anyway, why wouldn’t we want to eradicate misogyny so we don’t miss out on those contributions?
And the strong sense I get from Yiannopoulos is he doesn’t really care if we miss out on those contributions. If I’m right about that, that tells us everything about hm that anyone needs to know.
@16 PZ
I have identified myself in multiple comments on your blog as a woman in science and now here you are, doing exactly what many of the commenters on that youtube video did; telling a woman in science she’s not very bright.
PZ:
That comment you made to chris61 was a bit over the top. Is there any reason you’re questioning her intelligence rather than her listening comprehension skills?
Milo is openly gay and a deeply conservative catholic. That is pretty much all you need to know about his perceptive abilities.
vytautasjanaauskas @27:
(bolding mine)
As a gay man, that portion there jumped out to me as homophobic. I’m hoping that’s not the case though, and that you’ll explain what exactly you meant. Why is his sexuality relevant to his perception?
Tony, i see what you mean but i think it’s pretty clear that it’s not his sexuality that matters, it’s his amazing ability to ignore cognitive dissonance and his intellectual shallowness that vytautasjanaauskas’ comment is pointing out.
Gonna agree that PZ’s response was disproportionate for this specific thread. But….considering that we are supposed to remember things that chris61 said…..
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/08/theres-a-secular-argument-for-wearing-underpants-on-your-head-so/
(That’s the first comment in a long, long argument, btw)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/14/the-nobel-is-not-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card/
On the subject of Not Naming Names, specifically in response to a comment about morality being more than just what is legal/illegal: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/20/call-the-police-or-gtfo/
Please note, these are three of about ten or so threads I skimmed so it isn’t representative of chris61’s overall Commenter Creds. But there are definitely some rather irksome comments in their commenting history. Just sayin’.
I have to agree with 29 anyone who can be openly gay and a conservative catholic at the same time could easily take positions that are irrational in fact I doubt that they could even recognize a rational argument if they heard one.
They clearly live in a world of pure belief.
uncle frogy
@28 Tony, yeah, it reminds me a little bit of a lot of the Caitlyn Jenner commentary on the Left, that how can she possibly be trans after supporting homophobic causes and candidates over the years. Which denies the intersectional fact that gender identity transcends political affiliations. At the same time, there IS a certain cognitive dissonance, or the very least irony, evident in the way, say, Clarence Thomas or Log Cabin Republicans root for their executioners. I’m not sure the comment was overtly homophobic.
Honestly, a gay hard-right, frothing conservative is not significantly less rational than a regular hard-right, frothing conservative. Yes, they are voting against their own self interest, but really, MOST Republicans are. That’s what you have to come to terms with: from Randian gibbertarians voting for theocrats to dirt poor fundamentalists voting to enrich the aristocrats, there are very few hard-right voters who aren’t somehow hurting themselves. Some think they are helping themselves and ignoring the ways they are harming themselves, while others justify it as a sort of martyrdom in the name of Principle, and still others just think of themselves as One of the Good Ones, who will be the noble exception to the rule and not suffer like others in their group that are subjugated.
Not all Republicans have every privilege. Not all Republicans are rich Christian straight white cis males. And I think we have to be cautious when heaping out additional mockery for those ridiculous right-wing ideologues who just so happen to deviate in some way from the Privilege Royal Flush.
And Nawaz strikes again.
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/609027774410579968
@ chris61
Except for the part where Grossman is talking about creating environments that are supportive of girls and women based on actual demonstrable facts about how girls are socialized vs. boys and Hunt was just riffing on his demonstrably bullshit sexist preconceptions. But other than that, they totally agree!
They are losing. Feminism is winning. It is idiotic to even let this be a debate, but the outcome is completely obvious. I can’t say I’m not infuriated, but we are clearly winning. That’s why they are so upset.
I have identified myself in multiple comments on your blog as a woman in science and now here you are, doing exactly what many of the commenters on that youtube video did; telling a woman in science she’s not very bright.
Stop being deliberately obtuse — you’re not fooling anyone. We’re saying you’re not very bright based on things you’ve said that are not very bright, not based on what we know of your gender. That does not make us in any way comparable to people who are clearly insulting women based ONLY on their gender.
I will give the “Milo won” crowd one thing – Dr Grossman’s phrasing of the issue regarding women in the sciences was a little awkward. I think it would’ve been better to say that we should stop sabotaging women’s confidence, rather than that we should build it up. I don’t believe that women are somehow shrinking violets who, by nature, are shy an skittish, and need particular nurturing in order to flourish in a scientific career – we just need to stop telling them that they’re not smart enough and a distraction. Obviously that means building them up in the short term, but Yiannopoulos, being the, admittedly, talented sophist that he is, was able to take those words and twist them into being in complete agreement with Dr Hunt’s words when they were actually in almost total disagreement with them.
Who? When you dig up some “expert” that this newshound never heard of, you must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
@scienceavenger, 39
He’s the ace of based – gamergate’s example of an ethical journalist. He writes for Breitbart. He also apparently thinks that grown men getting excited about video games is one of the most embarrassing things possible… although, to be fair, he did write that before taking part in the debate shown above, so I suppose he can be forgiven in not counting his own display of smug irrationality in that list.
Fortunately I’ve never heard of this Yappylotsos guy, noisy gender difference “expert”, so I’ll just go on regardless supporting gender equality where I can.
Athywren @40:
That speaks volumes. No more need be said about the guy.
as they say, no one is completely worthless; milo’s clearly being used as a bad example …
@ 32 anbheal:
permanent tax cuts heal all wounds.
lessismore @45:
You forgot to close your blockquote tag with a ‘/’.
@28, his sexuality alone is not relevant to his intellectual abilities. Read the sentence again and think what I was trying to say instead of jumping to conclusions. Charitable interpretation is a matter of basic decency.
vytautasjanaauskas @47:
I did not jump to a conclusion. I said your comment read like it was homophobic and I hoped it wasn’t the case. I asked for clarification on your part, which you’ve not provided. Thankfully, others have clarified things for me.
Here’s what makes this so idiotic:
For one, as people have pointed out before, the irony in a college dropout with minuscule scientific knowledge telling an accomplished female scientist that women are inherently worse at science seems to have been lost on this Milo guy.
Second, he seems to be talking as if this biological determinism and gender essentialism crap was widely supported scientific consensus among neurologists. Can anyone here with an actual background in neuroscience clarify what the actual research on gender and scientific skill says? I highly doubt that it says what this dolt thinks it does.
I commented on “biological determinism” over at Ophelia’s, but…
One thing that people who smugly say “but there are real differences between men and women!” don’t realize is that they’re actually making a case for social justice when they say that. Yes, the purpose of society is to try to recognize differences and support people equally. If the idea is that women are different and therefore it’s OK to treat them worse, is it also OK to treat someone with Downs’ Syndrome worse, too? There are very real biological differences between me and Stephen Fucking Hawking, too; that doesn’t mean we should kick him to the curb – on the contrary civilization exists to try to support and enhance the lives of its disadvantaged members unequally; that’s the right way to help reduce the impact of disadvantage.
I’m not saying “women are disadvantaged” but the people who are saying “women are different” as if that justifies disadvantaging them are making a really epic own-goal.
PS – Jean Jacques Fucking Rousseau fucking addressed this in fucking 1754 in his “Discourse on Fucking Inequality” You’d expect a big thinky fucker like Yiannopolous to know that kind of fucking stuff. Or, he would, if he wasn’t so worried about his fucking hair.
@37 Raging Bee
So I’m not very bright because the things I’ve said are not very bright. What things and what specifically indicates they aren’t very bright? More generally, how do you distinguish between you insulting a woman because she’s not very bright and other people insulting a woman based ONLY on her gender? I genuinely would like to know because my impression is that it hinges on whether you agree or disagree with that particular woman’s opinion.
To even the playing field. There was a Grossman on one side, so they wanted a gross man on the other.
chris61 – well, you went wrong right from here: “I listened to that youtube video and I thought she lost because basically what she seemed to be saying was that in order to compete in science, girls are different than boys and need to be educated differently. ”
That was called not very bright, because she wasn’t saying that at all. That’s about your interpretation, not about your gender.
Then you did this: “I have identified myself in multiple comments on your blog as a woman in science and now here you are, doing exactly what many of the commenters on that youtube video did; telling a woman in science she’s not very bright.”
That was entirely disingenuous. Instead of trying to dig deeper into what caused that reaction, and where you might have interpreted things differently, you acted like throwing down an I’M A WOMAN statement was some kind of trump that should protect you from any criticism, as if you were playing Mille Bornes and being a woman gives you a coup-fourré. That indicates that either you a) can’t defend your point or b) refuse to try. So, you’re really not making a good impression here.
I fucking love that game.
Shut it down. The thread has been won.
Oops, meant to add attribution. That was to Azkyroth, #53.
@ carlie
Actually what she said was “women learn in a very different way”. How is that not to be interpreted as suggesting that girls and boys need to be educated differently?
@54 carlie
Dr. Grossman also said “yes, women cry”. So she agrees with Dr. Hunt and yet we are supposed to support what she says and disagree with what he said. How is that logical?
carlie wrote:
Was she playing that straight, or doing the all-too-common conservative “gotcha” routine (i.e. )? I suppose it’s dishonest regardless, though.
@zanyisspectrum 62
If you wish to discuss community culture issues take it to the The Mended Drum. At the moment you are basically using a disagreement and tempting an escalation “cause Pharyngula/FTB/whatever sucks”.
@crhis61, 60:
That is a gross misrepresentation of the subject at hand. Women crying is not a reason to keep them out of labs where men are present. Which is what Hunt actually said.
@zanyisspectrum 64:
Are you someone deliberately trying to sabotage comment sections? Survey says…
@ 65 Patrick G
Mine is a direct quote of what Grossman said. Don’t know what Hunt said because there is no video or transcript. However, when Milo suggested to Grossman that Hunt did not imply women should be kept out of labs, she did not deny that but replied “thats not the point”. From which I infer that Grossman believes that Hunt’s comments were inappropriate regardless of any implications attached to them. If his were inappropriate then using the same standard, so were hers.
zanyisspectrum @64:
Please take your attempts at derailing and being provocative elsewhere. Unless you’re here to actually contribute something relevant to the OP. Which you’ve yet to do. Comment on topic. Derail elsewhere. No one needs to be a “hall monitor” to recommend you do that.
@ chris61
Are you even for real? People who were present at Hunt’s remarks said he proposed segregated labs. Hunt has not denied saying that. When given the opportunity to clarify, he said he was being honest. But Milo Yiannopolis says he didn’t say that and Grossman said that wasn’t the point so chris61 believes him. Good reasoning there.
Further, do you seriously not appreciate a difference between saying “we should segregate labs because I believe idiotic, misogynist stereotypes about women and am too much a slave to my sexual urges to work with them without being distracted” and “we should have an educational system that is just as conducive to girls being able to learn as it is to boys”? You seriously think those are equivalent statements?
Whereas making baseless assertions and declaring others’ reasoning poor by fiat = gud reezoning.
@ chris61, #66
Yeah, sorry, you’ve lost all credibility in my eyes. Nice try! Come back and play again some day.
To explain my position: You do know he apologized for his remarks (albeit in a way that I, personally, found inadequate), right? Obviously, he thought he made those remarks! No only that, you must know that numerous organizations, from universities to academic societies to news organizations, have commented extensively on his remarks, without any denial of those remarks being made. No denial. Blustery explanation, but no denial. Zero. Zilch. But hey, I guess reality is just making stuff up, right?
What you’re saying is “I didn’t see it; it didn’t happen”. That’s not going to fly here, and you’re waaaay past charitable interpretation at this point, imho.
Blah, *Not only that. I can handle html tags, but otherwise, my fingers betray me. Cursed fingers!
zanyisspectrum @ 73
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that others are unable to scroll up their browser window and actually see what you said. And that nobody here is familiar with PZ’s writing and must therefor rely on your assessment of it. Cool story bro.
zanyisspectrum @69:
Nope. Sorry. This doesn’t count. Baseless, unevidenced assertions like this is the forte of many an anti-feminist, MRA, Pitter, Sad Puppy, Rabid Puppy, and assorted fools around the internet with a mad on for people who advocate for social justice issues. The climate at Pharyngula is still not going to be welcoming to fools like that.
Also, apologies to Seven of Mine, whose comment I clearly didn’t read carefully enough before making the same point.
@ Seven of Mine: I hold you directly responsible for my lack of careful reading. You monster!
@zanyisspectrum, 73
Did you really just pull the “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?” gambit? Really?
@zanyisspectrum
There’s a bit of a difference in expectation of credibility when invited to debate on public television as opposed to hosting one’s own opinions on their private blog. Context matters. Nice attempt at equivocation though as if speaking as an expert were no different than speaking at all.
OK, since it’s apparently important what Dr. Grossman said, here a short summary of each comment. Italics are my comments.
Grossman, opening statement: Hunts comments were irresponsible because of historical prejudice against women and still existing gender divides in science.
Yiannopoulos: There are advantages to being a man in science, male brains, female brains, feminists just don’t want to accept that. More equality means less women choose sciece because Bangladesh Shows his ignorance. Other stereotypes apply there. South East Asians were all thought to be deficient and lacking thinky skills, so there were no gender specific stereotypes.
Grossman: It’s not about male/female brains, it’s about confidence. Women suffer from impostor’s syndrome. She repeatadly makes it clear that this is always about some, never about all women.
Yiannopoulos, cutting her short: If you’re deterred by an off hand comment, you never wanted to do science in the first place
Grossman, talking about learning styles preferred by many women, how girls are deterred by very competitive environments. Yes, she could have phrased it better. She should have made it clear that this is a result of a long socialisation, not some innate quality.
Yiannopoulos, falling into her word again: S we shouldn’t have competitive environments, you’re saying we should segregate! Duh, exactly. Competitive environments are bad for students of all genders.
Grossman: No, I’m saying we should support women in male environments because they’re often more self refelctive.
Yiannopoulos: You’re the sexist, you’re saying that women can’t take it!
Moderator: What about gays and lesbians? I have no idea where that os coming from right now
Yiannopoulos: As a gay or lesbian you can get away with anything, especially bad behaviour!
Also, yes, women had structural disadvantages until the last half decade. But a lack of 50 yo female physics professors is due to women not liking science, I guess
Citing that study that women now have an advantage on the job market. Which contradicts numerus other paper people studies that have been done on this subject and also ignores that unlike our imaginary paper women, real women with those qualifications had to fight an uphill battle.
Grossman: The UK has the highest discrepancy in confidence, girls feel they’re not good enough for those fields, they are not welcome. Yiannopoulos talking over her again. Talking about how that affects women and that yes, some women react more emotionally, that she cried, but that doesn’t make her any less good, she graduated from Cambridge with better grades than the guys Guess who did NOT graduate from Cambridge. Talking about how those female traits don’t make women less equipped for science.
Yiannopoulos, falling into her word again: THat’s what HUnt said, he’s right!
Grossman: No, it is not. His implications …
Yiannopoulos, talking over her: He said he found it personally distracting Yeah, that’s why he wanted all labs to be gender segregated, because of a personal issue.
Also, he’s old! Grossman tries to get a word in. Yiannopoulos: You can’t expect him to keep up with feminist politics, he’s 73!
Grossman: He’s in a position of responsibility!
Yiannopoulos: The comment was perfectly unobjectionable if it were over the dinner table Yes, I LOVE having my capacities insulted over dinner, especially when my capacity to fight back such bullshit is limited by the idea that you don’t start a fight over the dinner table. Looks like men need those sheltered spaces to spew their crap because they can’t deal with rightful criticism.
Grossman: It would be objectionable if there were young girls present. No, it’S objectionable in each and every case
Moderator: But he’s an old man, do we have to forgive him?
Grossman: I’m not talking about him as a person. I’m talking about the environment and about the responsibility of people in positions of power not to perpetuate these stereotypes. Yiannopoulos again trying to cut her short. Grossman quickly explains the effect of stereotype threat without mentioning the word.
Yiannopoulos, cutting her short: Yes, teachers mark boys down except in STEM subjects but didn’t he just tell us that discrimination is gone?. Grossman trying to cut him short, him repeaing his point.
Grossman: I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about stereotype threat. Explains it again
Yiannopoulos cuts her short again
Moderator tries to get a word in, Yiannopoulos talks over her.
Yiannopoulos: Women are doing better ins school and college. Grossman, trying to cut Yiannopoulos short because being polite will only get you talked over, but I guess that many people watch this and think that SHE is the one who’s constantly interrupting.,
they earn more than men in their 20s and 30s not actually true,
they’re twice as likely to be hired not actually true either,
where’s the structural bias against women here? Didn’T you just mention that girls get graded down in STEM? That sounds like ahuge structural bias to me…
I see reasonable complaints from young men who feel discriminated against! Grossman trying to bring in some data, not successful. Women are doing better than them! So, you know, if they get graded down, have their confidence manipulated, and are still being better, maybe get your ass to the library and study instead of following Gamergate.
They are being held to feminine standards of behaviour! Because being kind to people, letting them fnish talking and nt shouting them down is such a burden Grossman trying to get a word in, Moderator cutting her short,
Moderator: Would you like to make a final point (to Grossman), then you?
GRossman: Cites numbers, says that shows we don’t have a level playing field and we need to make sure that girls feel encouraged to to science. They must not be pushed out because of who they are and because they might cry Men cry over lost football games, but women crying because something important just went wrong and they got heavy personal criticism, now that’s too much emotion
Yiannopoulos: This is based on the assumption that there ought to be gender parity, but there isn’t and we don’t complain when women dominate subjects like nursing! Doing a hard job, wiping people’s asses for little money? Of course guys don’t complain about women dominating. Has there ever been somebody who complained that somebody else always cleaned the toilet? Also, actually we do
So we shouldn’t complain when men dominate certain subjects and it’s pure coincidence that the prestige and pay lines neatly fit the gender divide
Moderator laughs an “I cannot believe you just said that” laugh. Thank you both yadda yadda
Chris61
That’s a classical example of quote mining. Yes, she said that. She also explained how that isn’t true for all women and that it also isn’t important because crying is not an indicator of being unfit for science work or for being unwilling and unable to engage in criticism.
YEs, women cry more on average than men. And for different reasons. So what? Last I looked we didn’t cry sulphoric acid or something toxic. If men can’t deal with a woman crying, maybe they should work on themselves.
And because three makes company…
Let’S talk about averages a bit, shall we?
On average, girls are different from boys. Now, this is irrelevant of where those differences come from. For me as a teacher it is of secondary importance if a kid at age 10 is like this because of nature or nurture, I have to deal with the kid at hand, not some imagnary kid that would be different if only they’d been given a greater variety of toys.
When folks like Hunt and Yiannopoulos talk about this, it sounds like they’re different species. Girls are like this, boys are like this, but in reality we have two distributions with some slightly shifted peaks and a huge overlap. This means that for every trait that is more common in girls, there is a significant number of boys who score higher on that trait than a significant number of girls and vice versa. If I gender segregated them and adapted my teaching style to the dominant traits, I would fuck over a significant number of students in each group.
Also, that competitive environment thingy? It’s bad, it’s really bad. Only very few students thrive within such an environment. Usually those who display traits of hegemonistic masculinity. The loud, the dominant. Everybody else gets fucked over. A group that includes many boys, those who do not conform to traditional and hegemonistic masculinity. so yes, MRAs hate men.
Giliel,
Actually, people (of any category) crying toxic substances would actually be a good reason for lab segregation.
That pathetic joke aside, if any lab supervisor finds their employees crying on a regular basis, they’re probably not a good lab supervisor. Strange how people keep forgetting how Hunt is constantly surrounded by crying people. Who keep falling in love with him.
My last post was in response to your #81, Giliel, just to be clear. I don’t actually want to respond to your #82, because it hits a bit close to home.
PatrickG
Sorry for that
@ Gileil: No worries. Grad school was rough, is all. Not your fault!
zanyisspectrum #69
You think the same standards should apply both to being invited to provide expert comment on a television show, and writing posts on your personal blog?
I wonder, are you one of those people who think that if you’re not given your own personal talk show, your freedom of speech is being violated?
So let me get this straight: the guy with some sort of college degree in some sort of words-based art* and two drop-outs to his name is trying to tell a woman with a triple first in the sciences from one of the best universities in the world and a PhD in Cancer Research, who now teaches all three sciences as well as mathematics, that men are intrinsically better at science? The man clearly doesn’t possess an irony meter, else it would have exploded by now and taken half his face with it.
* Nothing wrong with this and it’s very much an achievement, but it hardly qualifies him to speak on matters pertaining to science and the culture surrounding professional science.
@Chris61 #25
Based on previous things you’ve said, I was also of the opinion that you weren’t very bright. I was completely unaware that you were either a woman or a scientist, and frankly the knowledge hasn’t changed my opinion much. It does suggest that you might have something relevant and interesting to add to this discussion, but so far… swing an’ a miss.
@ All
Who is this zanyisspectrum person, and why do their parents let them on the internetz unsupervised when they are clearly about 12 years old?
Good job trolling and disrupting and intelligent conversation until you shat on it.
I’m just curious which previously banned slymey fucke this zany character is. Here’s a polite message to them.
Troll where they belong —>Hushfile. Relief…
Essentialism is the root of all evil.
@ 81 Giliell
Tim Hunt’s comments were also quote mined. According to Deborah Blum’s initial blog on the subject and a spokesperson from the Royal Society his comments were also overall supportive of women in science. If she’s to be given a break based on her support for women in science, why shouldn’t he?
The heartening thing about Milo being put on these things is this: he’s the best they can do. If there was a decent case, someone would be making it. If there were an influential speaker, he would be speaking. All the caveman contingency have is a bad journalist who spends half his time trying to make Gamergate like him. His act is transparent, and it shows.
I like the way Nerd of Redhed, Dances OM Trolls deals with bullshitters and trolls. Commenters like zanyisspectrum, not so much. Congratulations then to Nerd who is at least one more person popular than zanyisspectrum.
I day “he would be speaking”, incidentally, because I’m dismissing the possibility of an influential woman scientist being on the Hunt side of this particular kerfuffle.
chris61 @ 96
Good grief. By that standard, all instances of quoting are quote mining. Quote mining is when you pluck a statement out of context in such a way that it appears to mean something different than what it means in context. Which is what you did. You took a statement out of context and ignored the following statements in which the meaning was clarified. Tim Hunt’s comments mean the same damn thing in the context of the rest of his speech as they do on their own. And he also affirmed what he meant by them when asked. I.e. not quote mining.
Chris61
Do you understand the difference between taking a few words completly out of context and then claiming that they’Re meaning the opposite of what they actually mean in context and quoting quite extensively remarks where the context is pretty irrelevant unless they are started with “and this person said: “….” ” and then followed by “and I told them they were a horrible bigot”?
She isn’t given a break because of her support for science, she isn’t attacked in the first place because she’s not making sweeping demeaning comments about women in science.
chris61 @96
Stop lying. Tim Hunt clarified to the BBC that he only “meant to be honest.”
You’re not being very honest about your choice of words here. Quote-mined is reserved for people who are shown to be intentionally leaving out information. This is not what’s happening. Put me in the “I don’t think Chris61 isn’t bright, I just think they’re a bullshitter” camp.
@71 Patrick G
Sorry, I didn’t make my point clear. We know he made ‘those’ remarks and the majority of people including me agree that ‘those’ remarks were inappropriate to the venue. My point was just that we don’t know what else he said that might have given those remarks a different context. Just as in context, the intent of Grossman’s comments can be given a charitable interpretation.
@102 throwaway
Deborah Blum wrote: I talked about the importance and value of women in science. And Sir Tim also said something like that but then went onto say “But maybe I should tell you about my trouble with girls.”
So Sir Tim said something like the importance and value of women in science but Deborah Blum isn’t going to tell us what he said because she wants us to focus on the outrageous comment that came next. How is that not quote mining?
@88 Thumper
Had the guy said that men are intrinsically better at science, I agree that his comments would be ironic but that’s not what he said. He didn’t say that nor did Tim Hunt say that. If that’s how you interpreted what either of them said, your interpretation is flawed.
chris61 @104
Are you for real?
No one has a problem with him talking about the importance and value of women, or something like that, but when he goes on and says things that stand on their fucking own as belittling contemptuous arguments against women being in mixed gender laboratories. What possible quote prior to that would have negated all the bullshit he just inflicted upon all the hopeful women and girls who thought they’d be accepted in the lab, just to do science, only to have this guy shit on their capability at being anything other than eye-candy or crybabies? What possible thing could have been said before that infamous quote besides “Here is something a total raging sexist asshole might say:”?
Please, enlighten me.
Chris61: Here’s what you’re trying to do and it’s not working and you’re not too bright for thinking it will work: You’re attempting to equate what he said with quote-mining. Quote-mining is taking something out-of-context and attributing it to someone so that it says what you want it to say. Tim Hunt has never to this day said that he was quote-mined as you argue. He has reaffirmed his statement by stating he was “being honest.” You would think if he was indeed being fucking quote-mined of all things he’d have cited the part prior to his ‘girls are crybabies’ statement if it exonerated the fucking guy. You think he’s too stupid to realize that he could exonerate himself if he clarified it in some way?
But all that aside, what is even more fucking absurd is that you would have us believe that ANYTHING he could have said prior to that would exonerate his statements about how women shouldn’t be in the lab. Did he say “I used to think this way, but now I can see how stupid it was.”? Seems like something that he would have mentioned. No, he gave the statement on its own. Hell, he’s so confused about which way to go that he conflicts his reason with “trying to be honest” and “just joking.”
What the fuck chris61? I may have to rethink the camp I’m in if this stuff isn’t so readily apparent to you.
@chris61 #105
The video now has a big ol’ explanation mark instead of, you know, a video, so I can’t re-check his exact phrasing, but when I watched it earlier his opening statement was a lot of stuff about the differences between men and women’s brains, the clear implication being that men’s brains are simply better at science.
I never said that’s what Hunt said. Hunt said that women distract men, that they are constantly crying and falling in love with him, and implied that gender segregated labs were the answer.
Uh-huh. Care to explain what your interpretation is, and why it is more accurate?
Intriguing little mess. Chris61 continues her asine and perplexing crusade on behalf of poor misunderstood Tim Hunt. And this zanyisspectrum character enters, to muck things up further and be as obnoxious as possible. Gonna have to second the suspicion that they might be a pitter….
@zanyisspectrum #89
Ageism implies discrimination against or dismissal of someone due to their age; i.e. “You’re too old, I’m not hiring you”, “Oh, the poor dear’s just confused, she didn’t mean to call you a loathsome windbag”, or “You’re too young for your opinion on this to be valuable”. I’m not convinced that pointing out your consistently childish style of argument, exemplified in comment #73 with the classic “I know he does, but what am I?”, really counts as ageism.
And here’s the original tweet by Connie St Louis.
By her account, the only thing prior to the quote was about his reputation as a male chauvinist. Certainly a clever way to prove that the subsequent statements were totally quote-mined and taken out of context…. Oh wait, it does nothing of the sort, merely emphasizes their troubling nature.
@ chris61
The difference is that we know that the information she left out doesn’t change the meaning of the quoted words. We know this because TIM HUNT SAID SO WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT IT.
Chris61, the only way Hunt was quotemined, was If his sexist comments were part of a description of sexual harassment in the lab. Otherwise, they amount to a statement of sexual harassment, by means of causing microaggression to half the population, you included. Show evidence otherwise, don’t just say maybe.
As to brains, nobody is claiming there aren’t small structural differences between the brains of women and men. The data shows that those differences are so minute for the expression of the mind, that there is effectively no difference between men and women in their ability to learn and work in different environments. But there is a proven track record of sexist behavior and micro/macroaggressions against women in certain fields. Evidence is not on your side.
Why it doesn’t matter if he was ‘just joking’, and why those comments still need to be repudiated
Also, several people who were there have stated that he said after that he meant it, and that the “it was a joke” comments didn’t start until after the internet attention did.
Wow. I wish I could crawl around inside your head for a few days so I could begin to understand the thought process that goes behind this little rant. I’m being completely serious, this fascinates me.
I have one initial question (likely to be followed by several hundred more): are you saying that only rich Christian straight white cis males can logically vote for the Republican party platform? So about a third of the Republican primary field (Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal) is not only voting against their best interests but advocating for public policy against their best interest?
Also, the “privilege royal flush” is an interesting term. As if there were rules for the game of life and everyone agreed on them in advance before playing, and this specific set of arbitrarily defined birth characteristics means you’ve “won” the game. Or does it? Asians now have the highest bars to hurdle to get into college – shouldn’t they have claimed that royal flush title? And if they have claimed it, shouldn’t the religion component of the royal flush change because most Asians are followers of the Indian religions. How does merit play into the “privilege card game” you’re playing, or are your cards determined at birth? And if so – does that privilege change if you identify as another race or sex? When Caitlyn Jenner was a man he was – by your formula – one of the most privileged people on earth. Is her privilege now lessened or non-existent because she identifies as a woman? What about Rachel Dolezal?
Tom Weiss @ 115
This question betrays a complete failure on your part to understand what we mean by “privilege” in this context.
Tom Weiss, I am afraid I can’t say I would return the favor. In order to crawl around inside your brain, I would need to tread a little too far through your colon to suit my tastes.
To answer your question: No one can Logically vote for the Republican party platform unless they, quite Logically, discard any capacity for empathy and, also quite Logically, disavow science so that they can comfortably make everything Just Opinion and thus can fully embrace the nonsensical and harmful policies of the far right.
Also, you are trying way too hard to think about my off-the-cuff and semi-humourous Privilege Royal Flush term. Thinking isn’t your strong suit, Tom. Step back before you hurt yourself.
Just a quick appreciation of something Giliell said up there. “Men cry over lost football games.” Men are the majority of the fans of spectator sports, and will sit and watch a game being played in another state – well, not sit, but jump and holler and get all emotional. Men and sports – who’s emotional?
Chris61
So when Yiannopolous said “there is some reason to suppose that there are advantages to being a man in certain subjects, as there is reason to suppose that there is reason to suppose that biological essentialism , ehm, male and female brains are true”, he didn’t mean that men are intrinsically better at science than women?
Seven of MIne
Plus a comple failure to understand what a transwoman is.
Menyambal
Just a quick note back: There’S nothing wrong with crying over a lost football game, or being happy about a won one. Much better than burning the city down. The only thing wrong is to claim superiority for being allegedly less emotional, especially when we also know how the pressure on men to hide their emotions in other cases harms them and leads to bad mental health.
Why yes, I believe that’s exactly what anteprepro was saying.
Look who caught up! Proud of ya, buddy.
anteprepro coined a term meaning someone has all of the privileges in a given culture (white privilege, straight privilege, etc. etc.). We are all well aware that privileges and axes of oppression can change from culture to culture, or that the privilege and oppression experienced by an individual can change over time along with their perceived circumstances.
@120 Giliell
If that’s what Grossman who was there debating with him thought he meant, why didn’t she just say “you’re implying men are intrinsically better at science than women and there is no data supporting that conclusion”?
Chris61,
Calling someone who happens to be female not terribly bright =/= calling someone not very bright because they are female.
You’re either easily confused or dishonest.
Chris61
I quoted him almost verbatim, as much as that’s possible with a spoken text. that’s what he said. Give me a reasonable interpretation how “men are advantaged in certain subjects because they have male brains” does not mean “men are intrinsicaly better at science.”
I don’t care what Grossman thought he meant. She tried to have a reasonable discussion about prejudice and stereotypes. I quoted him. You said he didn’t say that. He obviously DID say that. So what is it now?
Thumper:
Very close. I am saying that only rich Christian straight white cis males can vote Republican without fucking themselves over. I still wouldn’t dare call voting Republican even in that circumstance “logical”. Which was part of my point in saying that we shouldn’t be so quick to judge those Republican voters who aren’t rich Christian straight white cis males as dramatically Less Rational than those who are, just because they suffer in some way from Republican policies.
Allow me to riff and babble more:
Regardless of whether or not they are personally affected by Republican policies, Republican policies are still irrational and still harmful to others and that is where the bulk of the Illogic is at play. Saying that they should supposedly know better, because they are personally affected, because they are atheist, because they are poor, because they are gay, because they are black, because they are trans, or because they are female, is to essentially shame them additionally beyond the normal critique of Republicans for the sole reason of being in an oppressed group. Which is counter-productive and feeds into the very discrimination we are supposed to oppose. And it makes politics into a matter of personal self-interest when it definitely should not be. It should be what is best for everyone, for society at large. Focusing on the individual level, how policies affect you personally instead of how they work to make life better for other people aside from yourself, is the Gibbertarian approach to policy. “Fuck you, I don’t want to pay taxes”. At some point, in order to have rational and logical politics, you need to look at people who are not you, look at the big picture, care about other people’s lives, and decide to do what is best for the most number of people, even if it hurts you. THAT is why Republican politics is illogical, and it is not extra illogical because the person advocating them is gay. It is not illogical for someone to vote for something that will hurt them personally. It is illogical for them to vote to hurt other people, regardless of whether or not they are also hurt. That’s my view on it all.
Tom Weiss @ 115
Jenner was never a man. Yes, she had privilege prior to coming out that she does not have now. How is that confusing to you?
Perhaps because he wouldn’t let her get a word in edgeways. After all, studies have shown that women don’t have to talk 50% of the time for men to think that they’re dominating the conversation.
Tom Weiss @ 115
Replace “was straight” with “was a man” and see if it helps you wrap your head around how a person’s privilege might be altered by passing as a member of a privileged class.
anteprepro @ 126.
Everything you wrote, I agree with.
Nerd,
I dig ya, Daddio. I see ya try’n and so does the troll. We’re all trying. Alot of toes have been stepped on and I’ve done plenty of stepping too. I’m glad people are sticking it out. It is getting better and it will keep getting better. That’s why xe’s trying sabotage this thread and chip away at people’s confidence and patience. Xe doesn’t want to see us cool with each other or at least having meaningful dialogue. Don’t let ’em get you down.
Yiannopoulos believes that when an oppressed class fails to overcome oppression that begins at birth and permeates every aspect of their lives, they don’t really want to overcome that oppression. We hear this constantly coming from conservative bigots. But when in an attempt to rise up from oppression the oppressed insist that it is the oppressors who should stop oppressing so that there is no oppression to overcome in the first place, we are told we are witch hunters, weak, lazy, the “real” bigots, trying to get special privileges etc. The response is degrading and even threatening.
Black Americans are to be silently uncomfortable so that racist whites are free to fly the flag of slavery and sedition. That this flag flies in a context of state sponsored murder is blamed on black people not being angels and saints, as if white people have the right to take the lives of the imperfect, so long as they are black. Then those same white people declare black people “thugs” and project their violent natures onto the people they kill.
The poor are to pull themselves up by bootstraps the wealthy make sure they do not have. They are called paracites by a class of people who contribute nothing but a steady drain on our culture and economy.
Women are bullied, mocked, brainwashed into internalizing misogyny, silenced and terrorized. When we remain in our places we are told it is because we must really want it and it is our nature to submit to the roles pressed upon us (like the rapes the same mindset rationalizes away). when we succeed, we’re trespassing on male territory and ruining everything we touch for the poor bigoted me who feel they should be free to fly their sexist flag s high and proud while we remain quietly tolerant of their intolerance.
When secularists what religious freedom and separation of church and state, we are the ones who are fascists who hate liberty.
Those who advocate for social justice are called bullies and much worse while they are being routinely threatened, lied about and harassed.
When any of us fight back, it is race baiting, class war and hysterical witch hunts. The projection and victim blaming is obvious, yet the excuses keep coming. What will it take to get these people to stop lying and defending their entitled, superior attitudes? Is it even possible to have a rational discussion or to make progress with people so determined to defend the status quo? After all, you cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into. So, what do we do?
@ Giliell
He said there may be an advantage of being a man in certain subjects because brains. He also said “the science is very much still out”. She goes on to talk about how girls learn differently from boys and are turned off science by competitiveness and a lack of self-confidence in their own abilities. In other words she is apparently arguing that boys have an advantage in science.
@chris61
Grossman does not claim girls are turned off by science. Stop making shit up.
Chris61,
What would it take to get you to tell the truth? Can you honestly not see how willfully obtuse you are being (or are pretending to be)?
Because it’s clear to see for everyone but you.
This is for posterity. So please, be honest.
Chris
Oh, you finally admit that he said the opposite of what you claimed above? That’s good.
Because being thought capable and being encouraged and having a work environment tailored to your learning needs is a fucking advantage. This has nothing to do with anything innate.
Honestly, I don’t even know what your argument is, apart from insisting that people apparently said the opposite of what they actually said. I though PZ was a bit harsch on you. Now I think I was wrong.
Bigoty and its effects are always
A. Not a big deal
B. Don’t exist
C. Not the fault of the bigots
According to those bigots.
On this thread, Chris61, you are engaging in all three rationalizations while being just vague enough for me to suspect you know exactly what you are doing.
Can you tell me why?
The only advantage boys have, is that they aren’t turned off by the microaggressions women face in STEM training from an early age. The old-boy network works hard to keep it an old-boy network. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
BTW, could be possible that Grossman got it wrong: Girls don’t underestimate themselves, boys overestimate themselves
That is not an accident. She wants her position to be as difficult to nail down as Jell-O so that she has room to deny her position and claim she is being misrepresented. This is a common tactic among people who know they are wrong but want to argue anyway. It is very popular with rape apologists.
Further, even if girls were turned off by science generally, that’s not a defense of a system that is demonstrably actively hostile to girls and women. It shouldn’t matter if only one in every 10 million girls ever showed an interest in science. That one girl should have as much support in the pursuit as any boy gets.
Denial isn’t just for enablers of addiction. It’s for all sorts of enablers.
Giliell @ 137
One of the comments on that article is a guy who says: “I dare say confidence in any subject is likely to lead to better performance” …arglbargl socio-political agenda arglbargl. The study showed men’s results were worse than they generally predicted they’d do but his takeaway is that men did better than women. Arglbargl socio-political agenda arglbargl. It’s always the people who are so blinded by their preconceptions that their reading comprehension suffers who run around accusing everyone else of having nefarious agendas.
Regarding the actual study, I don’t think the women predicting their results accurately necessarily shows that it’s male overconfidence at work instead of female lack of confidence though. Stereotype threat, imposter syndrome etc.
On this questIon about “structural differences” between male and female brains. Science isn’t a single skill like spatial awareness or foot speed or arm strength. There is more than one way to skin the cat, so to say. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of individual mental skills that combine together in all sorts of ways to produce the end product that we call “science”.
There are many structural differences in the bodies of Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, too. None of which precludes their ability to perform the complex task of quarterbacking at similar levels of competency.
That is of course, true, Amphiox, but you forget that for the misogynists, “science” is an abstract that simply represents all the rational, thinky, difficult, intellectual stuff, which must be kept a “male” thing so that males can continue to feel like they are better than just for having a penis, even if they happen to be inept idiots. One excellent way, as we know, to perpetuate this nonsense is to continually repeat the completely unsupported idea that that stuff really is a male thing. You don’t have to back it up, you just have to mention it and voilà…
You can see that in full effect in the video, from Milo himself. He mentions that “the science is very much still out there”, which while not entirely true, if accepted, should put you in the position of not being able to pretend that your preconceived conclussion is supported, and yet, Milo argues exactly as if his conclussion that males are superior at “science” was a valid and scientifically supported idea. When in doubt, your prejudice wins (although to be fair, it usually wins even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
@134 Giliell
Something just occurred to me. Is English your first language? If not we may have been talking at cross purposes. You said he said men ‘are’ advantaged and I pointed out he said they ‘may be’ advantaged. Not the same thing at all.
Chris61
1. No it isn’t
2. I quoted the fucker, unlike you
3. I seem to be more competent than you because
4. a whole load of native speakers seem to understand me just fine, Milo just fine, Grossman just fine, but nobody seems to get you.
Maybe the problem is you.
Gonna have to support Giliell’s point number 4. I understand perfectly what Giliell is saying, and I think her reading of chris61 is accurate. Insofar as I can actually understand what the fuck chris61 is even on about, because I barely can. And I believe that is intentional, because chris61 is doing exactly Jackie says at post 138.
Even when chris61 somewhat makes sense, it is obvious that they are trying to be dishonest and spin. This is a prime illustration:
Girls are pushed away by competitiveness and are made to feel less confident in their abilities.
Boys have the advantage in the science.
Chris61 wants us to believe that the first sentence logically connects to the second. That they are two ways of saying the same thing. Chris61 is full of shit.
(Also I swear this bullshit was incidentally refuted by PZ just three posts before this one: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/23/that-poor-wee-man/)
@ chris61
FFS. This is actually bordering on offensive. The difference between “are” and “may be” isn’t even on the same planet as the point here. The problem is not a language barrier. The problem is you have so little regard for your interlocutors that you don’t even give us credit for being able to work the scroll wheel on a mouse. We can all see you contradicting yourself back and forth and moving the goalposts from one sentence to the next.
@145 Giliell
Maybe it is.
I asked the question becuase I thought maybe part of your comment was hyperbole – surely you see the point of the public policy proposals of the right but you just don’t agree with their methods or endstate.
But if you truly believe the part of your latest comment I have quoted above, then you shouldn’t be a progressive.
“What is best for the most number of people” is first and foremost a subjective statement. What is best for you might not be what is best for me and vice-versa. And even if the two of us agree on what is best it likely won’t be in line with what person X believes – but according to your philosophy we should disregard what person X believes and force that person to participate in our way of thinking because we’re doing what’s good for the most number of people.
If you look at the big picture of history, one specific thing should stand out in your mind as doing “the best for the most number of people” (if we define “best” as meaning greater prosperity, more opportunity, more equality, etc). That one thing is freedom. The more freedom, the better (on the scale above) off people are relative to countries with less freedom. If the 20th century taught us nothing else it was this lesson.
As a result I will – until proven otherwise – always vote for politicians who pledge to lessen the power of government (or at the very least not grow it) and give more freedom to the people. And right now those people are on the right side of the political spectrum. Because I do care about other people’s lives, and I do want to do what is “best” for the most number of people. Moreso, it would appear, than you.
@ chris61 #131
Assuming your interpretation is correct, that would mean that she is saying that the way science is taught favours people with stereotypically male behavioural characteristics, and thus the methods of teaching combined with the socialisation of the two genders hands men an advantage, while he is saying that men are just better at science because male thinky better than female.
Can you really not see how those two things are different? One is the identification of a solveable problem, the other is a handwaving declaration that this is just the way things are and we all just ought to shut up about it.
Tom Weiss @ 149
There are two ways this statement is true:
1) if “the people” is defined as wealthy cis-het white men, preferably christian.
2) if you’re staggeringly ignorant of how the world actually works.
Or both.
Also:
To the extent that this was true, it was true when we had policies in place that conservative politicians have spent the last several decades undoing.
@ Tom Weiss
A government with less power does not necessarily equal a populace with more freedom. Such a ludicrously sweeping statement relies on the idea that all governments, and all actions taken by governments, are necessarily despotic and tyrannical, which is not true. To achieve maximum freedom for the individual you have to focus on those governmental powers which make it possible for them to oppress that freedom, not just attempt to curtail their powers in general. A society with no rules, no laws, and no governmental oversight is only “free” in a very simplistic sense of the word which fails to take into account the various other power dynamics at play in the real world. You have to remember that, if your behavior is unrestricted, then so is everyone else’s.
However, broadly speaking (really fucking broadly), I’d agree with you. I fully and firmly believe in the maximum possible freedom for the individual, while also being a firm believer in the idea that “your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins”. Given what you’ve said, I’d be interested to know whether or not your definition of “people” includes corporations.
Of course for this to mean anything useful, you would need to tell us what you mean by “freedom”. There are many freedoms on which no-one here would disagree with you, or only at the margin: freedom of speech, of assembly, of movement, or of occupational choice, for example. But do you mean, for example, freedom to sell adulterated food? Freedom to sell gasoline and paint with lead additives? Freedom to pump out all the greenhouse gases you want, despite the effect on the climate and the oceans? Freedom to hunt endangered species to extinction? Freedom to introduce invasive species? Freedom to keep your children ignorant by homeschooling them using creationist materials, to deprive them of health care for religious reasons, to beat them, to sexually exploit them for fun or profit? Freedom to prepare for terrorism or genocide, for example by stockpiling explosives or weaponising anthrax? Once you can get beyond mouthing your simplistic libertarian slogans, Tom Weiss, you might find that you enjoy and benefit from actually thinking.
It’s also worth noting that there is abundant evidence for the benefits of economic equality, and that this has been and is highest in states where governments have considerable powers to regulate the economy. But really, you don’t have the slightest interest in evidence, or you wouldn’t suggest, as you did on a recent thread, that we postpone doing anything about the urgent problem of anthropogenic global warming until some as-yet uninvented source of energy is magically produced by swallowing the libertarian nostrums pedelled by the Koch brothers.
@ 149 Tom Weiss
If you wish to make this argument, in addition to defining what you mean by freedom as Nick asks, it would be quite useful to give examples of these times and places that have the absolute most freedom and prosperity. Because I, like others might agree with the words you use, but I very much doubt I agree with what you mean by them.
I wonder, is your word choice here (“who pledge”) a recognition that those you vote for don’t actually pursue the policy goals stated?
Tom Wiess, I don’t give a shit what evidenceless liberturds like you think or do. You can’t/won’t (amounts to the same thing) show ANY evidence to back up your sloganistic ideas. You just repeat more slogans that don’t work.
Reminds me of the radicals during my college days. They couldn’t show evidence their ideas worked either.
Evidence is what separates delusional ideas like liberturdism from reality. Reality refutes your ideas. Which is why you have trouble here.
@ 150
I agree those two things are different. But why do you equate men thinking differently than women – which is how I interpreted Yiannopoulos – (or learning differently which is how I interpreted Grossman) as Yiannopoulos saying that men think better than women do?
chris61 @ 157
You’re being deliberately obtuse. The point is “different thinking” is the reason Yiannopoulos posited for why there are so few women in the sciences. Clearly the way men think, according to Milo, is better suited to doing science.
First show that there is a significant difference in thinking, not presuppose it.
He presupposes men are better than women. OINK.
Being deliberately obtuse is one of your debate tactics, and should be discarded ASAP. It doesn’t make you look like somebody we should listen to. If you can’t be wrong, you aren’t debating, you are preaching.
@157 Seven
No, I am being pedantic. Milo said differences between male and female brains may give men an advantage but that the science was out on that. He also posited there may be more men than women in science because women make different choices than feminists would like them to. So I went and looked at the data. There are overall more women than men graduating from post secondary education these days at every level including Phds (at least in the US). There are more women than men in biology and psychology and fewer in computer science and engineering. The excess of women in the former exceeds the excess of men in the latter because more people overall go into biology and psychology than into computer science and engineering. Maybe women really are just making different choices than men are.
In any case having thought about it some more I’ve decided the real reason I liked Yiannopoulos in this debate and didn’t like Grossman is because from what I’ve read (and Grossman seemed to agree) the differences between boys and girls in exhibiting a preference for sciences or math is established at a pretty early age and long before girls (or boys for that matter) are likely paying any attention to what some Nobel laureate said at a luncheon. I don’t think Nobel laureates rank very high in a pre or early teen’s list of cultural influences. So while I agree that there are plenty of cultural messages out there that discourage girls from going into science, I don’t think Grossman successfully argued that Hunt’s comments could even potentially be one of them.
No shit women are making different choices, chris61. If they were making the same choices, there’d be approximate parity, now wouldn’t there? What we’re interested in, and what Grossman was talking about, is why they make such different choices.
@ chris61 #157
Because the clear implication of what he’s saying in the context that he is saying it is that men’s “different way of thinking” is more suited to doing science.
chris61:
Oh fuck right off with this dishonest bullshit. Preferences can change. Or aversions can be solidified. Preferences can be influenced by adults who are themselves influenced by other adults, like Noble laureates. And that’s even buying the argument that this “early age preference” is clear cut in the first place.
And, really, even if it didn’t chase girls out of the lab, didn’t affect any listener at all in any way, so fucking what? It wouldn’t make what Hunt said any less stupid, insulting, and sexist.
The reason you find Milo convincing is because you have been an idiotic and unwavering apologist for Hunt since the very start, unwilling or maybe even incapable of grasping or accurately addressing any of the actual complaints issued regarding Hunt’s statements, and often completely in denial regarding the facts as presented. Your assessment of Grossman’s arguments should be taken in that light: they are an irrelevance because you are consistently warping the scenario, making a complete muddle of things, an ocean of noise. Because you are essentially a denialist, trying to manufacture doubt and confuse and derail and stifle. It’s just bullshit all the way down.
Also, with this:
Yeah, it is just that feminist are ideologues are trying to control women and desiring them to work in specific fields, rather than being concerned that the disproportionate “choice” by women to go toward one field and not another is reflective of a social, cultural, or structural issue and not inherently a difference in female brains or biology! Of course!
Just go fuck yourself.
I love the dishonesty. Milo, in the context of talking about women not going into math and science, discusses male and female brain differences. Chris61 says that doesn’t mean Milo is claiming that men think better than women! Just differently! Just differently in a way that makes men superior at math and science! Different but not better, but better in some ways, but not better. By fucking god.
Because there couldn’t possibly be any other cultural factors and pressures that begin at a REALLY early age and which impact child development. It’s either all Tim Hunt’s fault or the whole claim that cultural biases and pressures are negatively affecting women’s representation is complete and utter bollocks.
I don’t know what kind of scientist you are, but i hope you leave the deliberate obtuseness and the dishonest pedantry at the door….
Or what anteprepro said, earlier and better…
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/two-horrifying-tales-of-gas-lighting-courtesy-of-the-internet/
Amanda Marcotte writes about gaslighting here. It definitely applies to this post and thread.
Chris61,
I’m referring both to you and to Dawkins in 167. You are constantly trying to twist people’s words and deliberately pretend they mean something they do not. You’re trying to erase obvious sexism while supporting said sexism. It’s become clear you know what you’re doing too. We are not confused. You are not confused. You’re gaslighting.
Sure. That doesn’t happen in a cultural context. We just naturally love doing more work for less money, power and prestige. We love doing most of society’s butt wiping and other unpaid and poorly paid labor because we just brain that way. We no thinky so good, so we happy being epsilons.
If you’re really a woman, Chris61, you’ve internalized a hell of a lot of misogyny.
Chris61,
Your implication that feminists just don’t understand how women are was a pretty clear giveaway. Not so down with female equality, huh? Not quite aware that many feminists are women, huh?
You aren’t a feminist are you? You are arguing that Tim and Milo are not being sexist while actually having no problem with sexism at all.
Full disclosure would have been nice. Why pretend you are not anti-feminist in the first place? Are you that ashamed of your position?
chris61 @160:
Let me guess, you don’t think these differences are attributable to culture?
@170 Jackie
Yiannopolous posited that. What I said was
As far as feminists not understanding how women are, I don’t think anyone understands how anyone is except perhaps for themselves. And even then there are plenty of studies to show that we delude ourselves.
@171 Tony
Some of them certainly are because the number of women going to university has increased so much over the past 20-30 years. But all of them? I don’t know and quite honestly I don’t know that we’ll ever know because how do you ever separate out cultural influences from genetic and in utero environmental ones?
First step: stop assuming that people can’t do what they want to do. Stop throttling the pipeline with bias.
The one thing we do know is that old stereotypes and limitations aren’t true. If you don’t even know, why are you trying to impose new preconceptions?
People can’t always do what they want to do and people don’t always want to do what they can do. How is it bias to acknowledge that?
Chris61,
Well, since we will never know exactly, guess we should let old white dudes say whatever sexist shit they want. Also, shouldn’t try to make science and math more inviting to everyone. Just too big of steps until we have ALL the facts. WE might end up up making life better for people and we can’t have that without absolute proof.
They could without folks like you who shit upon their desires. Nobody should be told they can’t do something because of their sex. A woman could do my job as well as I can, as the job is more intellectual than physical. You appear to think that is okay to shit upon the aspirations of woulf be STEM graduates, making you what you don’t want be considered as. We have names for that behavior.
If no one can know anything, why are you bothering to argue? We’re all just deluded, but you have opinions that matter?
Really?
Chris61,
You are doing mental somersaults in defense of sexism to the point that when pressed to acknowledge facts you pretend there aren’t any. What sort of scienceing do you do exactly?
@177 Nerd
How do you get from “people can’t always do what they want to do and people don’t always want to do what they can do” to “nobody should be told they can’t do something because of their sex”? Of course nobody should be told they can’t do something because of their sex but more importantly nobody should refrain from doing something because someone told them that they couldn’t.
Chris, culture in general likes to say that women can’t do math/science/logic/whatever because of their sex… because “people can’t always do what they want to do”… meaning incapable despite desire, which is what we’re told.
My science teachers in middle school were amazed that I was so into science… because I was a girl, and girl’s aren’t supposed to be good at match or into science and logic. Neverminding that I was getting 100%+ on my math tests and science tests.
I was treated like I was an alien from another planet… because girls aren’t good at those things.
And don’t even get me started on the reactions to the fact that I was the top student in my metal shop class.
Stupid, not refrains because only one person told them that. They stop because hundreds of people told them that, displaying sexist attitudes while doing so.
You appear to be a conservative trolling a liberal blog. It would explain your problem here, your abortion fuckwittery, and your inability to dismiss the authoritarian DECODE nonsense.
You have no point. You haven’t for days. just unevidenced complaints. Typical of conservatives.
@183 Nerd
So now you’re mocking the work of female scientists working in ENCODE?
Apologies for @184. It was a pointless comment.
Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!! #169
chris61 @ 180
Get your head out of your ass. We’re not talking about women who, because exactly one person told them they couldn’t do X, decided not to do X. We’re talking about people being conditioned from birth that there are things for girls and things for boys. We’re talking about girls trying to pursue science or some other male dominated field and getting constant pushback from all directions and eventually deciding the benefits don’t outweigh the cost. We’re talking about boys who’ve been raised to believe that the sciences belong to them making life miserable for women, even when, if you asked them directly they’d tell you women are welcome.
Really? Is it? Is it more important that women suck it up and soldier on without ever being allowed to tell misogynists to STFU? That’s more important than men ceasing to tell us what we cannot do or be?
So it is women’s fault that misogyny day in and day out over a lifetime does what it is intended to do?
Is that what you mean by women making choices? Are you saying that we “choose” to be held back by misogynist men? We’re to just get over it, but dudes are never to STFU and stop giving us mountains of shit to get over in the first place? We should be strong enough to overcome bigotry that begins before we can walk and has permeated our culture for centuries, but telling men enough is enough is a witch hunt and not fair to the poor menz?
…but women’s brains are just different and we can’t do thinky? We’re the tearful, soft minded crybabies not cut out for work in the lab? Truly?
Oh, all the evens I just can’t.
chigau @ 186,
You know, despite my suspicions otherwise, Chris61 may really be a woman. I probably sounded like that in my late teens and early 20’s.
Men give you head pats for thinking like that. It becomes easy to resent women for being doormats than to resent men for wiping their feet on them. It is what we are trained to do.
It isn’t just sexism that does this to people.
Several adults who were bullied as children have assured me that bullying is good for kids because it makes them “stronger”. “Just look at the person I am today!” will say the person proudly advocating bullying children. When we delude ourselves like that we lose all self awareness.
Can I ask that we stop the gender policing here? Chris61 says she’s a woman. No matter how dense she may be being, there’s no good reason to be speculating about her gender, and it can be triggery as hell for trans folk.
Thank you.
No, I’m mocking somebody making arguments that are meaningless. By not saying “this is what I believe, and this *link* is the data to back that up. You argue from an authoritarian view point. You are the authority that must be listened to. I don’t recognize your authority, and most people here don’t and won’t.
Sorry Catiecat. I’m accustomed to MRAs on other sites claiming to be women. It is not that uncommon. I did not think I was gender policing. I merely suspected a dishonest person of one more lie.
I’ll cut it out.
The author of this hopelessly naive article seems at best a little dazed and confused (and this is putting it politely)
Milo is light years ahead of the embarrassing person sent to ‘debate’ him, other than withering contempt and insults (such as that creepily used by the author here, regarding Milo’s eyeballs) his opponents seem poor.
The bit about scientific credentials bares no credibility here, after reading a few articles mocking Dr Rupert Sheldrake, who has much higher credentials than Milo’s opponent.
Epic fail from the author here, sorry guys, at least you still have your abuse to fall back on
It’s nice to see someone like Milo used as a source for this kind of thing.
We in the uk are constantly used to seeing kate smurthwaite being wheeled out to talk about men, yet she has no credentials, Milo is a breath of fresh air here
Hi Milo.
You’re three weeks late to this thread.
II II @193:
Light years ahead and closing in on king douchebag, sure.
Minor correction Milo.
I see there is no content here to refute, really. I am just left wondering if this is a sockpuppet of someone else.
I actually started an account on this website to post this very comment (which kinda shows how strongly I feel on this issue). I very much share the same viewpoint as Milo in this debate (which probably means I’m already going to be shouted down, but hey-o).
First off, I’m aware that Milo is not a scientist. I’m aware how this can lead to people disagreeing with what he says about science. And I did too, at first. But this video, and others including him, shows how well thought through and logical he is. He is using scientific data/references in his arguments and he does very well to analyse these points to guess why it could be happening. Too much attention is put on who he is rather than the argument he is making, which is one of the top no-nos of science. His points should be taken into consideration regardless of who he is to encourage “Free Thought” (rather ironic, I think).
He is saying that there are more women at uni now than men (which is true), there are more women studying science than ever (which is true) and that women are favored highly by employers for STEM jobs (which is true) because the STEM field seems to buy into this misrepresentation of statistics from Emily. There may be a large difference between numbers of men and women studying physics at A level, but if there are more women going to uni and into stem fields afterwards, maybe women on the whole don’t really want to do physics? She also says that there is a problem with these gender imbalances in science, but A level Bio has more women than men (albeit a smaller margin) and Chem is pretty much 50-50; maybe women want to do different thing in science? Should that really be treated as a bad thing (as Emily seems to treat it)?
Furthermore, I really don’t think that there is a problem with gender imbalance when it comes to science A levels. I think I can say this as I studied the 3 sciences and maths in my AS levels in the last academic year. There was no encouragement for me to take Physics based on my gender. There was no discouragement for women to take Physics based on their gender. But it seems to be that women, with all options available, value other subjects/career choices more highly.
Or maybe the men who teach and do physics are major misogynist assholes who don’t want their territory sullied by women.
That is what the statistics and reports from the field say. Same for engineering, to a slightly lesser degree.
rbx97:
I suspect that if your feelings were truly that strong, you might have managed to comment when this post was current, in June, not August.
So you agree with Milo that there are intrinsic biological differences between men & women’s brains that make women less capable of doing science, while at the same time arguing that something is now allowing women to dominate the university?
I don’t think either of you are very good at logic.
Also, anyone who knows ANYTHING AT ALL about this issue of representation in STEM knows that the pipeline is broken — women are entering the fields, but then getting stymied at the higher levels. So pompously informing us that there are lots of women in undergraduate positions is nothing we didn’t already know, and completely misses the fucking point.
And there are examples right here in this thread, of women who left the pipeline before grad school.
When I was in high school, my final year’s course load was Physics, Chemistry, Comp Sci, Algebra, Calculus, History and English. When I went to university, I started in general Arts, before specifying to linguistics. Why? Because when I went on tour of a couple of universities, the physics and math profs were all (ALL) men, and the sort who made jokes about the tour being a sausage fest, and made comments on the appearance of the few women in the group, in that ‘benevolent sexism’ way. The eng/science ‘newspaper’ on campus was a misogynist rag, of the sort that wouldn’t be allowed today (this was 1984).
In short, it was made clear to me that despite my talent for ‘hard’ sciences, I wouldn’t be welcome there at a university level. There were women tough enough to do it, but I wasn’t one of them.
So yeah, fuck you for your anecdotal blindness to what happened around you, Milo fanboys, but it fucking happened and is happening.
PZ Myers:
Remember as well that there are many courses that are much more female dominated at uni, eg Languages, Psychology and Healthcare courses. I suspect that the drive to get more women in male dominated uni courses (combined with the lack of drive to get men into female dominated uni courses, which seems pretty sexist) has a lot to do with this. They may not be dominant in Physics courses, but (as I mentioned) more women do Bio and Chem in about even and women in science-ey bachelor degrees are on the rise overall. THE SYSTEM HAS CHANGED.
Also, this common response of “If women are entering the course, why aren’t they doing well at the top of organisations??” is something I find very silly. You must remember that this turnaround for women in uni has happened very recently (within the last 5-10 year, depending on location/whose stats you believe). Milo is talking about undergraduates in their early 20s who are only just starting their careers, you’re talking about a much older age group who are at the peak/nearing the end of their careers in their 40s and 50s……
…..of course there isn’t going to be many women in the higher levels because of how quick this turnaround has been. You would have to give it at least 20+years before we start seeing what effect the changes are having. That’s another problem of mine when it comes to this: everyone just wants change NOW NOW NOW.
As I said: THE SYSTEM HAS CHANGED, but seeing the effects of this change are going to take longer.
Caine: Fair play, can’t really argue XD it’s an ongoing argument though, so I think my points are still valid
No evidenced points. Ergo, invalid points.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls (fantastic name btw), you’re right. I’ll add this as a little footnote-type thing:
1) A link to where I got my information on the gender imbalances in STEM subjects: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-2/at02-17.pdf
It shows, as I mentioned, that while men may have presence in Physics degrees, Biological science is more female dominated and Chemistry is pretty much even. In fact, it also shows how there are more women in science+engineering degrees than men overall, giving me reason for my statement “maybe women want to do different thing(s) in science?” It also shows how more women are going to uni in all fields and the numbers of women studying science is steadily increasing.
2) I know that I mentioned A levels in the UK more specifically, so here are stats on those (showing similar to that mentioned above): http://www.questionsforgovernors.co.uk/choices/what-proportion-students-female/
3) I didn’t makes a specific point about the 2:1 bias advantaging women when going for stem jobs, but this is a good study to show it: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full
Also, if we’re being pedantic about evidence, i’d like to see your sources for male physicists/physics teachers being “major misogynist arseholes”. If “That is what the statistics and reports from the field say”, it would be nice if you would share them?
Just going to note here that rbx97 has managed to show their own implicit bias, by responding to everyone that responded to him – except the one with the female-identifying screen name. Funny how that works. But I’m totally sure that rbx97 is a credible witness as to the bias women don’t face in science, nevertheless. Much more credible than Rowan at 182, or me at 203, outlining exaclty what drove us out of science. Yep. Because penis, I guess?
RBX97, your wanking is irrelevant. Those of us in the field know the facts beyond mere statistics. We know WHY females are turned off of working in STEM fields. Which has to due with institutionalized misogyny in STEM fields. Typical irrelevant misogynist.
CaitieCat, Harridan of Social Justice (some fantastic names on here XD), sorry for not getting replying, genuine mistake on my part. I didn’t realise it was a direct response to me.
But to be honest, Milo responds to your point in the video anyway. Your story is from 1984, it is now 2015. As I mention in another one of my comments, this change is only happening very recently. I’d be (rightly) deemed sexist if I’d be making these points only in 2005. But I feel that, because it is a very quick change, many feminists are quick to dismiss that change is happening as all. I’m very sorry if the STEM field was institutionally sexist when you were going to uni in 1984, but the more recent stats (that I’ve been using in other comments) do seem to indicate that this bias is all but gone.
I know I’ve shoved stats down everyone’s throats, however i’ll slip in another one:
http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/diversity-in-university-physics
If you look at Fig.3 and 4 on the link, you see that the amount of female staff in physics education jobs at uni level is going up and the % increase of women entering these jobs is higher than men’s at all levels (much higher, in some cases).
To use another point from Milo: if you (or ANYONE, not just female) are put off of a career in science due to offhand comments, whether it’s Tim Hunt saying it or any other scientist, it doesn’t sound like there was much commitment in the first place………..
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
I’d be interested to hear what position you hold in the field. Because any sensible scientist would never underestimate the power of “mere statistics” and, more importantly, the analysis of them to work out what is going on. I’m trying to do just that. I’m trying to offer reasons for what is happening.
And you’re not.
You’re not addressing what i’m trying to say to you and your not coming up with sensible replies to what i’m saying . Instead, you’re using the typical feminist response of carpet bombing me with the whole “Misogynist” and “Patriarchy” thing and it’s completely childish.
You mentioned that you “know the facts”; please share them. Please enlighten the world as to why this is happening. Please give some reasons for why you are against what i’m saying.
Jesus. So which is it? Are women’s brains ‘different’, or are they doing just as well in science as men now? Because if it’s the latter, you’ve just disagreed with Milo, and you’ve also backed up the claim that there has been ongoing discrimination against women in science.
Further, your own source doesn’t support your claims.
There has been growth, which is good, but even now that institution is at 14.7%, not 50%.
I’d be content if you assholes would just be consistent in your claims. I don’t think you can.
Offhand comments? Offhand comments? You mean the comments every single day? Multiple times a day? The comments that come from society at large, telling me that I’m not good at science because uterus?
Fuck that noise and apologetics.
rbx97, #204
Because the lack of men in those courses is due to women oppressing men and not due to the dudebro mentality of “eww, girly courses!”
PZ Myers:
I’m saying that there is difference between the two genders brains. I’m saying that women are more dominant in UNI IN GENERAL (that is what you were talking about originally, before you CHANGED YOUR ARGUMENT) because of the other uni courses that are more female dominant which I mentioned before.
In SCIENCE there is a definite increase in women entering these courses, indicating a change of people’s perceptions of women in science. However I think people here are complaining about physics specifically, whereas science covers a much broader spectrum. I think women going into science want to be in different areas of science, but not physics (typically, obviously there are exceptions). While there may not be as many women in physics (which requires more of a “male brain” of being able to systematise), there is a larger number of women in other sciences like Biology and Psychology (which requires more of a “female brain” of being able to empathise). So yes, I think there are biological differences between the genders and I think that the advantages of having a “female brain” gives women an advantage in some sciences, leading to an increase in the number of women doing science in general.
Oh, and I am consistent with my claims. I said that there is a % growth of women in science jobs at uni and this is a very good thing. But (and I mentioned this before too) this “big turnaround” I keep referring to is happening very recently. Instead of wanting a 50-50 stat IMMEDIATELY (which is going to be impossible), we will have to wait before we can view the effects of what is happening.
Rowan vet-tech:
I’m a science student of 2015 (in all 3 sciences). Yes there were more men in physics.But not once was there a a encouragement for me to take physics because I’m male. And if there was an implicit discouragement for females, it certainly didn’t stop the women in my class from taking it. And they are some of the brightest people I have ever met.
I really feel that this world you identify with is 20 years out of date.
Saad:
Not because of women oppressing men, but from the lack of push to get men into these subjects (a subtle difference).
And I have many male friends taking these “girly courses ” at the moment doing very well for themselves, as well as many female friends taking “manly courses” doing very well for themselves too. There isn’t anything stopping either gender and (speaking from a male perspective) there has been no encouragement/discouragement for me either way. And I think a lot of students MY AGE would agree with that. Just because there was a problem a few decades ago doesn’t mean it can’t change. And it HAS changed.
rbx97
In English, “sex” and “gender” are not equivalent terms.
Citation. Fucking. NEEDED.
Fuck your ‘male brain’ and ‘female brain’ where male brains do thinky and female brains do feely because fluffy pink lady brainz are incapable of teh logics.
Fuck. That. Noise. You. Sexist. Asshat.
*deep breaths* Biology does not require empathy to understand. In fact, not all that long ago biology was viewed as a ‘male’ subject because of all the nitpicky little details and processes that it involves. Same with medicine.
As you can see from my nym, I am a vet tech. From my day today, please tell me where empathy was required in: Taking radiographs. Sedating and intubating a cat with a lip laceration. Drawing blood from 35 different kittens to run FeLV tests. Calculating medication dosages. Performing an enema on a constipated kitten. Ascultating hearts/lungs on 50 different animals. Performing physical exams checking for gross abnormalities. Administering vaccines. Participating in a necropsy. Submitting labwork, such as full chemistry and CBC panels, as well as histopathologies on the samples taken from the necropsy.
And that’s just a taste of this fan-fucking-tastic day that I’ve had today. No empathy required for my actual physical skills. Do I have empathy for the animals I’m dealing with? Yes, of course. But that has nothing to do with correctly position a patient for an x-ray.
Oink, oink, goes the male chauvinist pig…..
rbx97, #215
Is that based on anything other than the contractions of your large intestines?
rbx97, #217
But they can’t be doing well since they don’t have the right gender brain as you yourself stated.
Stop lying and stop contradicting yourself.
Re: the mythical ‘systematic’ male brain, please look up the history of the word ‘computer’, and then cram your sexist attitudes somewhere dark, humid, and vacant, like an earhole.
You are a sexist idiot.
And Rowan is right. Life sciences do not particularly require much of an ability to emphatise. Biology requires a fuckload of ability to systematize. How can you even think otherwise? Biological systems and ecosystems are complex. If you’re not good at systematizing you’ll quickly get overwhelmed.
The fact that women researchers in biology are doing just fine now with their “female brains”, while not that long ago the field was male dominated because women-are-not-good-at-sciency-things should tell you right away that what you are spouting is in fact a load of sexist bullshit. The same sexist bullshit that was used for years to keep women out of biology.
I don’t want a 50-50 stat immediately. I want the female = feely; male = thinky toxic bullshit to stop IMMEDIATELY. I want that to stop being a factor in kids’ minds when they’re making decisions about their future and picking their interests. This binary thinking is harmful, wrong, and it needs to die.
Implicit discouragement did not discourage ALL women, so it must no exist. And even if it does, fuck women who were discouraged by it, if they really wanted to go into physics they would just have put up with it anyway. Grow a thicker skin, discouraged women! Right?
Fuck you.
The fuck it has. It has changed so much that you’re still right here, telling us how most women will suck at physics anyway because they haven’t got the thinky kind of brain, so what are we complaining about, no one is stopping anyone.
Meanwhile, some little girl somewhere is listening and convincing herself that she will probably suck at physics anyway, so why bother even considering it.
rbx97, #215:
You are a sexist idiot.
And Rowan is right. Life sciences do not particularly require much of an ability to emphatise. Biology requires lots of ability to systematize. How can you even think otherwise? Biological systems and ecosystems are complex. If you’re not good at systematizing you’ll quickly get overwhelmed.
The fact that women researchers in biology are doing just fine now with their “female brains”, while not that long ago the field was male dominated because women-are-not-good-at-sciency-things should tell you right away that what you are spouting is in fact a load of sexist bullshit. The same sexist bullshit that was used for years to keep women out of biology.
I don’t want a 50-50 stat immediately. I want the female = feely; male = thinky toxic bullshit to stop IMMEDIATELY. I want that to stop being a factor in kids’ minds when they’re making decisions about their future and picking their interests. This binary thinking is harmful, wrong, and it needs to die.
Huh. I sort of half double posted.
Sorry.
Not only does this idiot have preconceptions about the differences between men and women, he’s got pig-ignorant dumbass preconceptions about the sciences.
One name: Barbara McClintock. Fuck your stereotypes.
As many people seem to be attacking the whole “male brain/female brain” thing, i’ll address that in one.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ
http://brainblogger.com/2015/01/13/mars-vs-venus-differences-in-male-and-female-brains/
There is at least some reason suggesting a difference in male/female brain activity. The second link has citations to the studies on this.
As people are also bashing the whole ‘biology needs empathy’ point, I think you’re forgetting one of the very reasons that many people take biology at A level is because they want to go on to do things like medicine, veterinary sciences and researchers to cure diseases. Quite a lot of people take it because they want to see how chemistry and physics apply to animals and the majority of my biology class, when I was taking it, were aspiring to be doctors/vets. Remember as well that in a biology lab, one of the tasks you have to do is dissect; while necessary to understand what is going on, there must be utmost respect for the animal that you are cutting up and a few students will even leave the class while dissections are taking place.
So yes, I think biology does require a great deal of empathy. Perhaps not in subject matter, but in the wider context of class activities and what you want to do with it afterwards. At least, more empathy than Chemistry and Physics.
Ah yes, the “look I get to absolve myself of all responsibility to do anything because the problem has actually solved itself and we just have to wait to see the effects” argument.
And meanwhile, real human beings are systematically suffering from denial of opportunity. But you don’t have to worry about that, do you? Future generations will be just fine. The people alive right now can just go fuck themselves, right? Besides, empathy is only for female brains, not you.
And I’m not contradicting myself. I’m saying that nothing is stopping women taking science if they want to do it. However you have to look at it from an average at this point. Less women are taking physics than men; this tells me that less women want to take physics?? And i’m quite happy to exclude gender biases towards any of the subjects; it’s a way of thinking that’s so out of date. However many people are still quick to dismiss it because it has happened so very fast. It’s very much a generational issue and it’s not going to be an issue in 30 years time (after we let the effects of what is happening now trickle up through society).
Also, as a male, I find it sexist how so much attention is focused on getting women into typically male dominated courses, while there is so little attention on getting men into female dominated courses. You’re all calling me sexist, but actually if you were all really for gender equality in the west you would be spending much more time trying to get men into these courses.
Neither of the citations provided in #229 even remotely come close to supporting the claim that female and male brains differ on the “systematize/empathize” axis.
At all.
Not evidence. What is needed is studies showing that at the working level of total brain, there is a significant difference. And you won’t find that. The data says otherwise epsilon misogynist male. You are afraid of real competition, as you know you will lose.
Typical of those who need to keep others down to feel good about themselves.
Provide some specifics, please. Name the field and name the systematic biases that are preventing men from entering those fields that actually can be addressed by policy changes.
Specifically, provide even one example where the source of that systematic bias is actually anti-male sexism, rather than a byproduct of anti-female sexism.
For the women who are being negatively affected by this NOW, 30 years is TOO LONG TO WAIT.
But you don’t care about those women, do you?
Some misogynist fool needs to recognize how a sexist/racist culture effects outcomes. It isn’t innate brain differences, but actual indoctrination into the bigoted culture.
@ rbx97 #199
*rolls on floor laughing*
Maybe they don’t. Have you perhaps considered why they don’t?
I can’t help but feel that an excess of empathy would interfere with your ability to do a dissection, rather than aid it.
You also seem oblivious to the fact that you have just insulted both men and women everywhere. I am perfectly capable of empathy, thank you very much; just because you are not and happen to own a penis does not mean that penis-possessors everywhere are also incapable. There’s also no evidence whatsoever that men are better at “systematic” modes of thought (hell, I’m not even sure what you mean by that; I’ve just assumed you mean it as a synonym for “logical”) and that women are more empathetic. You’ve failed to prove your premise.
He just keeps digging! Not even a moment’s hesitation in anything…he’s got his ideas fixed in his head, and nothing will change him. I should probably just ban him.
That WebMD article he cites is fucking awful — full of factual errors and rife with preconceptions that belong in the 1950s.
You have got to be kidding me. Those numbers are ludicrously nonsensical. Gray matter makes up roughly 40% of the cerebrum — when it’s almost half, how can you get 6.5 times more in men’s brains?
Also, I’ve been teaching neuro for about 30 years. This is the first time I’ve ever heard it called “thinking matter”.
(re: arts courses)
Hi! I have a double BA in English and Linguistics, a MA in Literature, and I am 4 years into an English PhD. And I can confidently tell you that, while there is definitely a high proportion of women to men in most language/lit courses that I’ve taken (3 different universities in 2 different countries, now), the proportion of men to women actually employed in the departments are MUCH more even. I even have a citation for you– out of curiosity, I just went to the website for my undergrad english department, and counted up the number of male names vs female names in the full-time faculty. And… apart from 3 names I was unsure of, the results are 21 male faculty members vs 15 female.
So, actually! Men are implicitly encouraged and given preferential hiring even in the arts. Though most of my classes had, on average, 20 women to 5 men, those 5 men will go on to have a much better chance of getting hired for a full-time teaching position than I will.
(… I hadn’t actually thought about this, but thinking about the people I know, my slightly older friends and colleagues? Yeah, most of the ones who’ve finished their arts MAs or PhDs and have full-time positions in academia are men. The women have largely ended up in different industries, like publishing or [in one case] teaching at a private high school rather than a university. And I am plenty happy and proud for Ed and Sean and Quincy and Jeroen, but it’s still pretty discouraging.)
Whoops, forgot to include the link to said English department! I should note that this college, Michigan State University, is a perfectly average big American state university with a decent but not particularly prestigious English department. http://www.english.msu.edu/people/faculty/
@rbx97
So, a couple of things come to mind. I was pretty happy to just roll my eyes at your comment at first, but apparently the thread’s alive again so…
You’re an A level student. That doesn’t mean you’re not smart, doesn’t mean you’re not thoughtful or that you can be dismissed out of hand, but it does mean you’re not very experienced yet, and are likely to miss things that would be somewhat more apparent to others. You can’t really take your own experiences of pre-degree education and a few sources that don’t actually support your claims and build a case on that alone about the state of degree level science education or hiring practices.
What are you thinking of when you say encouragement? Are you imagining that you’re called to the head’s office, asked to take a seat, and then told that you, with your astonishing and manly brain should become a scientist? Because that’s not what it means. I mean, obviously that would be a form of encouragement, the most overt and obvious form, and maybe some people do get that form of encouragement; but people simply praising your input and showing their approval is also encouragement. There are shades of subtlety at work in human interactions that allow for people to be encouraged or discouraged without someone overtly saying, “I am encouraging/discouraging you right now,” and not all encouragement or discouragement is conscious, or intentional. And, sure, if you had no talent for science, you likely wouldn’t get any encouragement – any encouragement you’ve received (and if you’ve genuinely received none, you might want to consider a change of subject) will not be because you’re male without regard to your actual talent, but a female student of a similar level of ability might not be getting the same encouragement* because maybe your teacher believes, as somebody recently said, that science (because physics is not alone in the sciences in requiring systematic thinking) requires a male brain with the ability to systematise. Surely you can see how such a belief would lead someone to be less supportive of a girl who showed an aptitude for the sciences, even if only subtly?
*I can’t say or certain, because I have no experience with your teachers, your college, or the prevailing attitude there, but it’s a fairly safe bet.
Imagining for a second that the system has changed*, as you claim, and that the lack of women in physics in higher education and relevant fields of work is solely due to women’s choices, how do you think the amount of support a person receives in a subject influences their attitude toward it? (And, again, this isn’t down to girls being called to the head’s office, asked to sit down, and told that “girls can’t do science so stop trying to do science” – it’s about little things, like faint praise for hard work, or having an answer ignored, and then repeated by a male student and seeing him praised for it, etc.)
People are influenced by the societies in which they live. If a society drops all the barriers that have been in the way of women taking scientific careers, but continues to perpetuate the myth that women are simply not as good at systematic thought, for totally random example, then women will continue to be under-represented in the sciences – not because they lack the talent or the drive, but because choosing to enter the sciences is still a choice that is seen as unsuitable for a woman.
*Of course, it has changed and is changing all the time, but I mean specifically regarding the treatment of women, toward the entirely equal, bias-free, merit-based system that you seem to imagine.
Have you actually thought through this? Have you considered what it means to live in a world where people are constantly making offhand comments about how you’re somehow inferior? Do you think that Tim Hunt’s comments were the most recent, and that it’s been silent since then? Or that it was silent between his comments and the previous high profile incident?
How much commitment do you think it takes to put up with the dismissal of your intellect on a daily basis? For that matter, how much commitment do you think it takes to put up with the dismissal of your commitment if you’re running low on the commitment needed to deal with the dismissal of your intellect?
For the record, in case you’re thinking that this only makes sense to me because I have a female brain that unlocks the empathy skill, I’m not a woman. I do have access to empathy, though, as well as a systematic mind, because the two are not mutually exclusive by any means… nor is there any reason that I can work my head around that would lead people to believe there was. They’re different things, but they’re not opposites.
Statistics can be good. They can tell you an awful lot. They can also utterly mislead you.
Take percentage increase, for a totally random example which is not influenced by anything at all. Lets say I’m a member of a religion. That religion, I tell you with statistics to back it up, is the fastest growing religion in the world. Must be a pretty major player on the world stage, right? Either that, or it had one member last month, and this month it has thirty nine – but just try to find me a religion with a higher percentage increase! Can’t, can ya?
Relative increase only tells you anything of value if you know about the relative levels. That women have the highest percentage increase may be (and, I think, is) a sign that the system is changing, but changed? Not really. Not yet.
Statistics can be good, but you need to know how to read them if you want them to help you understand anything.
If my results contradict my premises, it’s possible that there’s an external effect that’s making this happen, but it’s always worth making sure the premises are actually correct before we assume that this is the case. Maybe less women want to take physics, but maybe there actually still is something stopping women taking physics? An unwillingness to question premises isn’t particularly compatible with success in the sciences. Just FYI, in case you’re considering pursuing a scientific subject at degree level.
rbx97,
Those articles are indeed awful. The site on the second link? Following a link on the recommended articles sidebar led me to… an anti-vax piece. I suppose you didn’t notice this. But all I’m saying is, be careful with your sources. That site isn’t trustworthy. When you see an article titled “Vaccines – A Two-Edged Sword” you know the kind of site you are dealing with, and you probably shouldn’t be happily linking to it to make a point.
So, no, I don’t trust that. Cite the studies themselves if you think they will help your case.
Wait, I’m confused. Do students leave the room because of their ability to empathize or is it because of lack of empathy? Because not being able to do a dissection or even watch one because you’re an empathizing kind of person won’t exactly make you a good biologist, will it? Let alone a good doctor/vet.
So what was that about female brains and biology again?
Less women are taking physics than men. What you need to ask yourself is this. If girls didn’t grow up being told that , would this still be happening?
*deep breath*
Quoting myself above: This binary thinking is harmful, wrong, and it needs to die.
We need to stop telling girls that they’re bad at systematizing and that’s okay because they’re girls, we need to stop telling boys that they’re bad at empathizing and that’s okay because they’re boys. This is wrong and harmful.
After we’re done with this then you can say “nothing is stopping women” and look at statistics. Until then, sorry, but no.
Rbx, I just adore your dodge into how biology is all full of empathy because career choices, and completely ignoring that not long ago being a doctor or vet was considered a man’s profession, and also conveniently ignoring that people in those careers must also take chemistry and even some physics (I do, after all, have to take the heel effect into account when taking radiographs…. OH NO PHYSICS, my ladybrain can’t handle it!).
Tell me, do you also think racism in the united states ended because we elected a black president? If you are happy to exclude gender biases then you are beyond ignorant and naive. It is NOT out of date. I’m only goddamn 32 years old. You can’t call something ‘out of date’ if it was rife a decade ago… and is still rife today, only more subtle because it looks bad now to bluntly say that women don’t do thinky.
Maybe if men weren’t raised to think of women as icky and those ‘female dominated courses’ as science-for-dummies or generally not useful or touchy-feely there wouldn’t be such an imbalance. And almost all of those ‘female dominated courses’ were once viewed as manly-man courses, but then women started taking them and it’s like there’s women cooties that spread over the subject matter and contaminate it forever so that men no longer want to take a course that women do.
So, sorry, the whole lack of men in certain subjects is indeed sexism…. but against women.
Rowan,
*pat* *pat*
That’s okay, Rowan, I understand. My degrees are all in biochemistry, which clearly requires loads of empathy but NO PHYSICS WHATSOEVER! No, none at all. I just have to use my ladybrain and its amazing empathy and language skills and guess what, proteins tell me all about they’re structure. Just like that. (And I’ve heard Rosalind Franklin used the same approach with DNA, btw.)
Giliell:
‘I quoted him almost verbatim, as much as that’s possible with a spoken text. that’s what he said. Give me a reasonable interpretation how “men are advantaged in certain subjects because they have male brains” does not mean “men are intrinsicaly better at science.”
I don’t care what Grossman thought he meant. She tried to have a reasonable discussion about prejudice and stereotypes. I quoted him. You said he didn’t say that. He obviously DID say that. So what is it now?’
As everybody can easily verify on youtube, what he said in his opening statement was :
“We hear that a lot from scientists, particular from female scientists, but the fact is that there is some reason to suppose that there is an advantage to being a man in certain subjects, that there is reason to suppose that gender essentialism, biological determinism – whatever you want to call it – , the fact that there are male brains and female brains, may indeed have some basis in science. Now, this is thrown out completely out of the window by feminists and female academics who just refuse to accept that there is any reason whatsoever, why there might be a gender imbalance. Two things on that: One, actually, science is still very much out on that. And two, if you look at equality in society, if you look for example at Bangladesh vs. Norway, you will notice that the number of women in science and technology subjects actually goes down as societies are getting more equal, because women simply don’t make the same choices that female academics and feminists would like them to do. Women actually don’t want to go into the sciences,, on the whole, and when they have every option available to them, they tend not to.”
So in a nutshell: What he said is that there might be a biological reason for the lower number of females in STEM field subjects and the lower number of males in social sciences/occupations (and by extension for general gender-specific tendencies), which is completely dismissed by feminists but would introduce a ‘natural’ gender imbalance that is not sexist.
I want to add that he is talking of possible “advantages” of men in sciences. This does not have to mean superior skill or aptitude, but could simply be a higher inherent interest in STEM field subjects, or, as Dr. Grossman herself admits, better adaptivity to competitive environments (and the scientific community and its dependence on external funding is inherently competitive after all).
That is entirely different from what you attributed to him.
Do you call that ‘almost verbatim’ quotation?
“Might” is not conclusive evidence for anything. It is pure speculation that take doesn’t into account cultural upbringing and indoctrination. That is your problem, going from “might” to “it is the reason”. Evidence?????
‘ “Might” is not conclusive evidence for anything. It is pure speculation that take doesn’t into account cultural upbringing and indoctrination. That is your problem, going from “might” to “it is the reason”. Evidence????? ‘
And your problem is that you don’t properly read posts and use your resulting knowledge of the contents of said post to jump to conclusions about the opinion of the author.
I merely responded to Giliell’s assertion that Milo suggested that males are intrinsically better (as in ‘more skilled’) at science than females. This is indeed not what Milo said, he instead expressed his opinion that there is reason to believe that biological factors play a (possibly considerable) role in the observed gender imbalance. An idea, as I might add, that certainly is far from “pure speculation” considering the well-known structural differences between male and female brain anatomies. It is pretty funny how some people always seem to be black/white about certain subjects. As if behavior is either 100% nature or 100% nurture, but not possibly a mix of both. Can I kindly ask you to provide me with a list of scientific publications that show conclusive evidence that differences in brain anatomy do not cause any kind of biological determinism and that, correspondingly, observable tendencies in job selection must be fully attributed to cultural upbringing and indoctrination?
*”resulting incomplete knowledge”, of course
A biological factor that favors male participation in the sciences clearly denotes an advantage that males have, which means something is causing them to be better at science than women.
This view is energetically pushed, because then it’s totes not the fault of men, or their attitudes. Might I inform you that my mother, who is a mere 63 years old, was told as a high school student that too much education would damage her brain because she was female? She took 2 years of o-chem in college, plus a shit ton of other science classes, but decided not to pursue because of her male peers.
Having seen the shit that women face in the sciences is why I decided to not become a paleontologist, even though that was, and is, my dream career.
But noooo…. it’s not that we were driven away. We just don’t have that thing that the ‘male’ brain has that makes them so good at science, and so that’s why we didn’t follow through. Damn fluffy pink ladybrainz.
No, you must kindly supply the data to back up your claim that the minor structural differences, given the very plastic human mind, cause a difference in abilities at the end of the day. You are wrong until you show you are right.
Meanwhile, the cultural factors, including institutional misogyny, which you seem to support (as you don’t oppose it), must be concluded to be the right answer. If the cultural doesn’t encourage women as much as they do men for STEM skills, as the Mythies say, “There’s the problem”.
Culture is the null hypothesis, because we KNOW culture can affect these things.
Also, it is not “any” kind of biological determinism, it is biological determinism in a complex, multi-faceted sphere of activity, such as science, in which there are many different ways to succeed, with many different skillsets being potentially helpful.
So,
is the Argument From DifferentBrain easier or harder when one uses
WomanBrain vs ManBrain as opposed to
WhiteBrain vs BlackBrain?
Rowan vet-tech:
” A biological factor that favors male participation in the sciences clearly denotes an advantage that males have, which means something is causing them to be better at science than women. ”
Nope, that does not follow. Me choosing my field over social science does not mean that I have a inherent sex-specific talent for natural sciences or that I would not be a great social worker had I chosen a different career path. I simply chose it because I have a great interest in my field, which might give me the advantage that I am more motivated to follow the literature and to understand things than other people.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
“No, you must kindly supply the data to back up your claim that the minor structural differences, given the very plastic human mind, cause a difference in abilities at the end of the day.”
I don’t, because that is not what I claimed. In fact, I did not claim anything. As I wrote before, I merely quoted what Milo said.
However, if you insist…have a look at this
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sex+differences+in+cognitive+abilities&btnG=&hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5
and feel free to follow the references. Apart from that, Google Scholar has also other gems to offer.
What about your scientific evidence that biology is negligible here? This is what you claimed twice now by dismissing that there might be biological factors. In your own twisting of the burden of proof: You are wrong until you show you are right.
Amphiox:
“Culture is the null hypothesis, because we KNOW culture can affect these things.”
Nope, I asked for evidence for the claim that biological factors do not play any role in the observed gender imbalances in various occupations, a claim that I find somewhat extreme. Culture cannot be the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis in the statistical sense is the state that arises in the absence of external influence, i.e. by chance. Alternatively one could come up with a null hypothesis that is in contrast to the hypothesis that biology has an influence on career paths, but that null hypothesis would still not be that everything is culture, just that biology has no influence.
“Also, it is not “any” kind of biological determinism, it is biological determinism in a complex, multi-faceted sphere of activity, such as science, in which there are many different ways to succeed, with many different skillsets being potentially helpful.”
Which is why it is usually feminists who prey upon some alleged biological determinism in terms of inherent scientific prowess, while neuroscientists talk about various characteristics and dispositions that statistically manifest in different degrees in males and females.
honkidonki
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
(It will not improve your writing.)
Your claims aren’t proven. a link to a google search is a sign of desperation.
As far as training and culture on the plasticity of the human brain: Musicians brain. The outer manifestation is the same in both sexes. Music is produced.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
I didn’t claim what you are saying. Telling me otherwise does not exactly shed a good light on your reading comprehension ability. How about some additional exercise?
And what does that choice of yours have to do with your biology? Nothing? Why then, just maybe, biological differences between the sexes have nothing to do with it either. It’s personal choice, and we know that society is sexist so maybe the lack of women stems from something to do with society. ….
How about you either put up or shut up as far a minor brain structures yield differing outcomes that can’t be traced to culture/teaching/indoctrination? STEM differences are due to culture/education/microagressions/discouragement. You don’t have the evidence otherwise, and you can’t stop yourself from making presuppositional excuses about it. This is an old argument here.
Rowan vet-tech:
I understand that you and Nerd of Readhead want to project the kind of stance on me that you can argue against. It is a misguided attempt, however, as I, as a researcher contributing to that subject, try to stay neutral and keep my mind open to the possible influences of various factors, be it nature, nurture, chance etc. Fact is that culture and society obviously have a significant impact on our behaviour, but there is also a bulk of (ongoing) scientific research suggesting (in general) sex differences in cognitive dispositions that might lead to a variety of effects. Autism is one prominent candidate, affecting males about 4-5 times as often as females. Everybody who follows the literature and is not ideologically coloured knows this. Clearly, it is difficult to disentangle biological from cultural (or other) influences and conclusive evidence might never be achieved. That is why I, as I believe every serious scientists does but apparently in contrast to you and Nerd of Redhead, choose to not take an extreme stance on the subject. You trying to project one on me in order to argue your point does not change that.
My stance does not matter for what I wrote previously anyway. I attempted to point out that your equation of Milo’s “Advantage of males in certain subjects” with “Inherently greater talent in sciences than women” does not hold in my opinion, because inherent interest/motivation would be an advantage and not make a statement about inherent levels of aptitude in men and women. Identifying the “advantages” and “biological determinism” Milo mentions with “higher skill” thus seems like a misrepresentation of his stance in the video, especially if context is being taken into account. From what I see here, misrepresentation of facts and opinions seems to be not uncommon here in the comments, but we really should refrain from doing that.
Nerd of Readhead:
How do you know?
Seriously though, what kind of debate style is that?
How on earth do you mean to say that having an advantage doesn’t make one naturally better? I’m talking prior to effort, here. I have a natural talent for drawing, but have never truly applied myself to it. I’m certainly better than average, but there are people with less native skill who put in the work, and so are better than me. However, I still have the native skill and, looking at just that, am “better “. You and milo are claiming, or are appearing to claim, without proof, that men are just natively better at the sciences. This claim is bullshit without proof, especially when placed against known things like stereotype threat, social conditioning and male attitude. It was only 45 years ago that my mother was told that too much education would damage the female brain. It was only 20 years ago that my science teachers expressed pleased astonishment that a girl was good at science. Yet you would just dismiss all this and insist that male brains simply have an advantage?
This isn’t a philsophical debate. It is a SCIENTIFIC debate, which you aren’t participating in.
Sorry stupid asshole, we are trying to debate you scientifically. Which means, “put up or shut the fuck up”. Evidence rules, not possibilities, maybes, could bes, and other equivocations. Clearly state your premise and the evidence behind it. Or don’t state it at all.
From what you have presented (or rather haven’t) you have no evidence….just a which that women are inferior. Which is misogyny.
And in case you are interested, I have been practicing science for 40+ years. You don’t know how science is done, you just have an idealized picture in your mind to confirm your own biases.
Nope. As I repeatedly wrote, I do not claim that. I motivated my (lack of) stance in a whole paragraph, which really makes me wonder why you insist on beating a dead horse.
As for Milo, what I heard of him so far suggests that he thinks of a genetic predisposition that makes males tendentially more curious about subjects like Physics, Engineering and Computer Science than females; while females are tendentially more interested in “human affairs”, such as Psychology, Biology, Education. A naturally higher interest is an advantage while studying/working in the field, even though it does not suggest in any way that males in general have a higher mental capacity than females do. That is one conceivable scenario, and not a novel one, where your equalisation does not follow. That is also the scenario he defends in the video.
How eloquent! You call me names because you got annoyed by your own projecton on me. Clearly a mature debate style worthy of a practician of science of over 40+ years. I just wished your reading would be up to par. For example of the paper that you linked before, Where did you study and what is your degree?
Is there any proof for this “tendency” that is not equally and more readily explained by social conditioning?
If anything is expect female brains to be more curious as being hunters wouldn’t leave males with much time to explore, whereas the females would have more chance to experiment. Maybe I should write an evo-psych paper!
Assertion without evidence, dismissed as fuckwittery, like everything you have said. Show, with evidence, Milo is right, or shut the fuck up about his claims. Either they are true, or they are bullshit. That is science. And the data says bullshit.
You need to separate social conditioning, which is the problem with bullshit like evolutionary psychology. Which makes it meaningless just so stories, not worth the ink they were printed with.
HOW DO YOU KNOW? You haven’t presented evidence, whereas I have.
Rowan vet-tech:
I get the point and it is a good one. Of course there is no “proof”, but there is evidence, for example the experiments from Baron-Cohen’s group and others. Of course, as we probably all agree, separating biological from cultural factors is a non-trivial task in a complex social environment and interpretation of such experiments is necessarily subject to criticism and scrutiny. I think we should just be aware of the fact that just because everything may be explained by social conditioning and society does not mean that it is the full picture.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
The “How do you know?” was a potshot at presuppositionalist debate tactics.
Look, your debate style is not really worthy of any more attention. I suggest you attend a proper university and see what science really is about.
But if your hypothesis supports a highly sexist status quo with so much societal pressure behind it, maybe one should rethink the validity of the hypothesis. … unless one, of course, happens to actually agree with the highly sexist status quo and would much rather “blame ” biology than reconsider societal attitudes towards women.
Remember less than 50 years ago the reigning idea was that female brains couldn’t handle extensive education, because of biological differences. … if your new hypothesis is similar to such a blatantly wrong one. …
Sorry, not a reigning idea, but one that was still being espoused. And older male teachers in the mid 90s being surprised by a girl who was good at math and science. We have studies showing no difference in mathematical aptitude in children. I’m quite sure that most children would show an equal interest in the sciences if equally encouraged instead of one group being subtly discouraged.
Sorry shithead, I have a PhD and have taught at the University level. Do YOU has said credentials and experience? If not, shut the fuck up about credentials.
Assertion without evidence, dismissed as fuckwittery. What a loser you are.
As for what the null hypothesis is, here is some quotes: From the Guardian
From the Economist:
Now, where the fuck is your refutation of the null hypothesis?
Your evidence has been MIA from your first post, and you know that loser.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
Please. Even Kent Hovind has a PhD and “taught” at “university level”. Fancy providing me with some of your publications?
Rowan vet-tech:
I can see the attacks already coming, but what I’m going to write is not meant in any sexist way, rather than as objective as humanly possible. Your statement about “sexist” hypotheses comes down to scientific ethics. Does a factually correct hypothesis/model/theory that describes nature need to be abandoned just because it could be used for “politically incorrect” or dangerous goals? Natural selection has been and is used by social darwinists, but from what we know it is the correct mechanism of evolution. Nuclear physics can be used to build power plants and horrible weapons, but is the correct physics that governs nuclear decay in radioactive elements. Now, fact is that nature does not care much about sexism, we know this from many species in the animal kingdom, and objectively, I do not see an a priori reason why this should be fundamentally different for humans. So what should happen with a hypothesis that is sexist but hugely supported by evidence? Mind you, I don’t mean to imply at all that men are superior to women or vice versa. The question is about a hypothetical situation where we have strong evidence that men and women are not, by large, equal. Would we need to withold it or do facts stand above everything else?
I personally don’t dare to take a guess about what would happen. But by all means I would embrace a society where everybody is allowed to follow the career they are interested in. And I know quite a few Physics or Engineering majors who would not mind having more girls in their program. But what happens if even without “institutionalised misogyny” the numbers are not 50/50?
Can you find another species where the male or female is demonstrably less intelligent or capable of something intellectually? Because you certainly don’t see that in any other species of mammal, nor birds, nor reptiles. So why are humans suddenly different and in such a way as to preserve a sexist status quo? Why keep coming up with me hypotheses that support sexism when the old ones have been debunked each time?
Does higher education harm a woman’s brain? No. Are women bad at math? No. Spatial sense? There is such a huge range of overlap that saying “men have better ” makes as much sense as choosing the bowl with somewhere between 202 to 302 cheerios rather than the one with 200 to 300 and declaring it to be so much better and more. Especially when the first bowl might very well only have 230 and the second 295. But please, go on about the inherent superiority of bowl 1….
Would you consider suspect a hypothesis that said blacks are less intelligent than whites? Because we’ve had those too….
Who said anything about 50/50? This isn’t playing probability like in a punnett square. But there could have been at least two more, and if mom and I abandoned a science track there are probably plenty of others who did, or never tried because of societal attitudes. And I’d really like to see more male vet techs and veterinarians. Vet med got women and became covered in cooties apparently. In 14 years in the field I have worked with 2 male vets and 14 female vets, and 2 male techs as well as an uncountable number of women. This is ridiculous. There is nothing preventing men from being good at vet med aside from societal pressures and embarrassment because it is now chiefly seen as a woman’s career, not a manly one.
Or do you have some blatantly wrong and asinine hypothesis why suddenly men aren’t quite as interested or capable, because biology?
This is typical misdirection of ignorant bigots, be they godbots, creobots, or misogynist fuckwits. YOU FIRST. Otherwise, YOUR ability to speak cogently and scientifically is up for question. No question in my mind. You are just another bigmouthed ignorant dudebro. No evidence to the third party literature to be seen, an your talking points are straight from bigoted web sites. Hence, you aren’t taken seriously.
As long as the institutional misogyny exists, and is reinforced in the STEM fields to a large extent, the numbers won’t be 50/50. There is long way to go to remove all the misogyny and microgressions starting even before elementary school.
Again, show honesty and integrity. Put up the third party literature demonstrating your claim, or cease making your claim. If you can’t put up, and won’t shut up, you demonstrate with prima facie evidence, your ideas are nothing but bullshit.
Thumper (etc) to Chris21:
As a would-be good Bayesian, I am compelled to advise you (on the hypothesis that your priors and mine are not very different in the relevant ways) that the knowledge should change your opinion: it should (infinitesimally, which I agree isn’t much) lower your estimate of the cumulative brightness of the ensemble of all women scientists! So Chris21 wins by losing!!!!1!
Jesus fuck, but this thread is a magnet for assholes. Honkidonki:
Oh, bullshit. Show me any evidence for a “genetic predisposition”: you haven’t, Milo is clearly an ignorant moron who doesn’t have any, and there isn’t any. And your classification scheme is bizarre and prejudicial: biology gets categorized under “human affairs”? Why? It’s a hard science, focused on math and chemistry and complex phenomena. I suspect it’s because it has increasing numbers of women enrolling in it (it also has increasing numbers of everyone in it — bio’s numbers keep going up, while CSci, for instance, is currently in a slump), so ignorant assholes like yourself and Milo, who know nothing about the discipline, feel free to make up shit about it.
Claiming that you’re magically about it all is not impressive. Objective is not a synonym for ignorant, no matter how often you use it that way.
Nerd of Redhead: Knock off the obsessive crap. About 25% of the last 50 comments in this thread are from you. Volume and repetition do not improve your arguments. Make your case and then let it go.
PZ Myers:
I must admit, Dr. Myers, that the tone of your reply certainly is not what I would expect from a scientist and educator of your standing and it makes me wonder whether this how you address your students or your colleagues in cases of disagreement. I believe I have laid out my posts in a polite way, it certainly is not too much too ask for a similar treatment.
As for the actual content: I assume you are aware of the fact that mentioning/quoting someone else’s statement is not equal to agreeing with the statement. My posts here were solely aimed at the allegation that Milo defended the view that women were intrinsically less skilled at sciences, a view that I don’t see convincingly reflected in his statements in the linked video, and also not in other public appearances (at least not those I saw). He rather seems to follow the view that girls and boys have an inherent slight difference in interests, which contributes to them making them make slightly different choices. I thus saw the equalisation of his statement with “women are less skilled at science” or “women are not as intelligent as men” as misrepresentation of his views, which I believe should be avoided in a fair and mature debate. His stance certainly can be questioned, however, if you want evidence for his claims for a biological influence you should rather write him and ask him about it, instead of trying to discredit me, who argues a totally different point.
Milo is a blogger and show host, his contact details are public, I am sure he is happy about mail.
My personal opinion is that of the likes of Diane Halpern, that the question of the interplay of biological and environmental factors is unsolved to date and requires a bulk of further research and careful assessment of evidence due to the complexity of the system in question. This is well reflected in the nature of controversy arising from the publication of books such as Cordelia Fine’s “Delusions of Gender” and the following replies. I thus choose to not take any ‘side’ on the issue, as long as the evidence is not conclusive. In the interest of scientific integrity, Dr. Myers, I can only hope that you hold a similar view towards your research. Calling me an “ignorant asshole” despite you not knowing my credentials, stamping a view on me that I repeatedly mentioned I do not defend and writing a disdainful off-topic post seemingly entirely based on my admittedly sloppy but for the argument completely irrelevant writing of “human affairs” does not leave me with high expectations, however.
By “not choosing a side ” you are choosing the sexist status quo by default. Also tone trolling gets you nowhere and perfectly odious views can be expressed politely. Being paginate or angry doesn’t make us wrong ,and whIle you may be fine with mentally wanking over the idea that women just aren’t interested because ladybrainz (how terribly convenient for the men ) this is MY life and experiences, one where I was indeed subtly discouraged and my mother actively discouraged. But you don’t want to think about that, because then we mount need to change how women are viewed and that is soooooo hard.
Good christ, we’ve got a sealion here.
A disingenuous one, too. You show up with long-winded defenses of Milo Yiannopoulos, but oh no, you’re not arguing for significant sex differences in science, or that biology is a ‘soft science’, no, not you. Because you’re hiding behind your interpretations of Yiannopoulos’s words.
I think that makes you a coward. Fuck off.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Sokrates
Oh whine harder tone troll. You have failed repeatedly to provide any evidence for anything. You have ignored my last two posts and failed to address my questions posed therein. Go take your sexism elsewhere.
Why should I have to remain dispassionate when you’re discussing if I’m ‘as good’ as a man? Should I also remain dispassionate when told that I can cause myself to be raped? Being a Vulcan is the privilege of the discussion being NOT about YOUR lived experiences. So go fuck off and take your ‘waaaah, they called me a NAME!’ with you, you asshole.