You must accept that our bodies are different. And we have different hormones. It is clear that there is an actual difference between the sexes.
Why do you have such a hard time accepting this? Gender stereotypes are perfectly normal because we are different.
What I do know is that male suicide rates are climbing. I'm not sure fuzzy gender roles have anything to do with it, but we can all make wild claims without a single scientific article to back it up.
The problem with any stereotype is that it limits choice ("I'm a boy so I -must- play with guns instead of dolls"), which leads to inefficient use of the potential of the next generation. To miss out on a math genius just because she happened to be a girl and was taught that she's too stupid to handle advanced math is detrimental to the advancement of the human race.
Boys and girls -are- physically different, but physical differences are enormous even within each gender (or race, if we're going to get into that kind of stereotype) and pretty much the only thing that's physically hardwired to be possible for only girls or boys are their respective functions in reproduction (almost, tech is making advances…).
So limit an individual's choices based on gender is as dumb as limiting them based on race. And yes, by only ever showing "boys using boys' toys" and "girls using girls' toys" we are in effect limiting the available choices for kids; we're a social species after all.
The "girls can't do math" stereotype is not just wrong, its false in the sense that we should just stop saying it. Its more akin to a bad told myth, brining harm where ever its being retold.
The #1 preferred profession from a woman in Sweden is economist, based on yearly polls. If one look at university education, women dominate the class room in every areas of match except one subject (abstract math), and then men only reach above 50% in abstract math after the 3rd year.
So the stereotype is not true. Its not true as in, women are as able to handle math as men, but it also not true because women actually work with math more commonly than men in real life. Its not true in any aspect what so ever, so please, please stop spreading the myth. Its only doing harm. If you need to describe a stereotype, take one that's not this one.
If abstract math is the only "pure" mathematics is open to debate :).
On other hand, in 1st, 2th, and 3th year, there are still more women in abstract math classes than men. I do not think any "who is better at what" can be said, beyond the stereotype "women are bad at math" can be explicitly be stated as false.
> On other hand, in 1st, 2th, and 3th year, there are still more women in abstract math classes than men.
This is almost definitely false. While the male/female gender ratio is reasonably close to even for math majors (I think it's 60/40 m/f?), it is nowhere close to even for many heavy math-based disciplines. Engineering and computer science degrees are very male-dominate and the students routinely spill over into math classes.
FWIW, I majored in math at a university that was 10th highest in the student female to male ratio. I counted some of the classes for fun, and I remember counting a slight male majority most of the time. One semester I believe I counted a 57% male population over my math classes.
> I do not think any "who is better at what" can be said, beyond the stereotype "women are bad at math" can be explicitly be stated as false.
This certainly seems to be true. High school females are starting to outperform males in math, while males continue to dominate math graduate school. Reasons are unknown, but in general we can say that "girls aren't bad at math".
See top post about this being specifically about Swedish statistics. For specifics, it was data reported by the universities themselves, calculated by the overseeing body for education, and published in Swedish news media 2011 last time I saw it.
When people speak of "abstract math", they generally mean mathematics, because they use the term "math" far too loosely. In a very real sense, a person can be taught to "do math" all the way through Calculus III, Linear Algebra, and even Differential Equations and still not have any real aptitude for mathematics.
>stereotype is that it limits choice ("I'm a boy so I -must- play with guns instead of dolls"), which leads to inefficient use of the potential of the next generation //
Stereotypes don't themselves limit choice they enable statistical analysis of populations. It's what you choose to do with the analysis that can lead to limitation of choice.
However, if I'm tall and you're short then it's not better for us together as a [small] population to cut short my legs and give you stilts to give us a semblance of similarity - who's going to reach all the high and low places [efficiently] then?
Of course this doesn't speak to an individuals worth, but your sentence says "the next generation" and so we're looking at the population as a whole.
>To miss out on a math genius just because she happened to be a girl and was taught that she's too stupid to handle advanced math is detrimental to the advancement of the human race. //
Individuals are largely irrelevant to the advancement of the human race.
Now the question is if group A have a propensity born out of their biology to activity X but you have to ensure that equal numbers of group B are doing X, despite their propensity for that activity being statistically reduced over group A's then that is inefficient. I would warrant in a far more significant way. It's a big if of course.
No one is supporting teaching people they're stupid.
>So limit an individual's choices based on gender is as dumb as limiting them based on race. //
I don't agree that these are comparable. If I want to be a mother then my race is largely irrelevant.
However, those who wish to remove gendered play are attempting to limit choice based on gender. By not letting gender-C do activity Y _because that's a stereotypical activity thusfar for gender-C_ you are doing that very thing that you'd claim not to. Moreover you're assuming that the behaviour is bad just because of the gender of the subject.
[FWIW if you'd couched your arguments in terms of something akin to a Kantian imperative instead of in terms of benefit to the human race I think they'd be much stronger].
The thing is that even true stereotypes can be harmful. If 90% of group A like thing 1 and dislike thing 2, and you form a stereotype on this basis (a true, accurate stereotype) - you offer As 1s when they come round, you market your job that involves a lot of 2s to Bs rather than to As - then you can exclude and harm the 10% of As who like thing 2 and dislike thing 1. It's not being false that makes a stereotype bad.
What is wrong with stereotypes is that they are stereotypes. They are fine as theoretical constructs in an educated debate, but they reek havoc on those who are still developing their sense of identity.
Gender stereotypes are the reason kids get called fag or dyke at school, irrespective of their sexual orientation. This is real, and these kids are suffering terribly because of it. The number of student suicides because of homophobic bullying is on the rise, and it is something we can fight against.
I'm not saying there are no differences (although there are virtually no professions that need be gender specific - men and women can be equally proficient at almost everything), but that we should foster an environment where we minimize those differences because the outcomes of not doing that quite literally destroys lives.
All the evidence you need can be found by checking out the "It Gets Better" campaign started by Dan Savage.
Minimizing the differences between the sexes destroys lives by emasculating men, leaving them depressed, unable to secure a mate and suicidal. See, we can all do it. The "It Gets Better" campaign has nothing to do with this, taking a tiny subsection of the population and trying to say it shoud apply to us all is bad science.
I am absolutely fine with saying we should foster the understanding that there are different gender choices than just hetro male/female. That we should embrace those choices as willingly as the other two.
What I am vehemently opposed to is your outrageous view that the way to do that is for us all to become the same. I'm for more choices, not less.
"Minimizing the differences between the sexes destroys lives by emasculating men, leaving them depressed, unable to secure a mate and suicidal."
Do you have any support for that claim? I've seen much more support for male "suck it up" sterotypes causing suicides, by keeping people from getting help with PTSD and similar issues. Not that the two would be mutually exclusive.
You are putting words into my mouth, and attacking me with an ad hominem (outrageous is totally unnecessary there). I never indicated we should all be the same, rather we should all be free to develop our identities without the social constructs that society puts in our way. If you want yo express your identity by farting, belching and touching your groin every five minutes, I'm fine with that. But if toy go round saying that women should do that, or its unladylike, or in any other way assert those behaviors as masculine to kids and teens who have no had a chance to fully form their identities, well then we have a problem.
As for source material, the bibliography of Delusions of Gender is a good place to start.
> I never indicated we should all be the same, rather we should all be free to develop our identities without the social constructs that society puts in our way.
Minimizing differences, which you have advocated again and again, imply we should all be same.
The OP's article describes a Swedish school's overreaction to gender bias by forcing behaviour modification on students who display gender-conforming behaviour. This is an overreaction to gender bias issues both real and perceived. Ignoring the context presented by the article, emmapersky is advocating gender neutrality. They aren't advocating the forced minimization of gender differences; they want to end bias against those who display gender-variant behaviour.
Gender bias is present in our society along with the pressure to conform to gender stereotypes. Boys who play with dolls are often bullied by other boys and are socially rejected by their peers. Girls who don't dress the right way are bullied by other girls and are also socially rejected by their peers. In adult life, men who chose careers such as nursing are chastised for it by members of both genders. Women who chose professional careers are pressured forgo their careers to have children, again, by the members of both genders. To those who take gender-variant roles, this is a problem.
While there is a problem, some overreact to it trying to treat gender-conforming behaviour as a disease; as this example in the article:
Hunter College psychologist Virginia Valian, a strong
proponent of Swedish-style re-genderization, wrote in the
book Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, "We do not
accept biology as destiny ... We vaccinate, we inoculate,
we medicate... I propose we adopt the same attitude toward
biological sex differences."
That is not a reasonable solution. Gender-variant behaviour should be tolerated instead of being discouraged. The article's conclusion agrees:
There was a time when a boy who displayed a persistent
aversion to trucks and rough play and a fixation on frilly
dolls or princess paraphernalia would have been considered
a candidate for behavior modification therapy. Today, most
experts encourage tolerance, understanding, and
acceptance: just leave him alone and let him play as he
wants. The Swedes should extend the same tolerant
understanding to the gender identity and preferences of
the vast majority of children.
Postscript: Anyone engaged in the debate of gender bias and gender stereotypes should be aware of both their own and other's social biases[1].
> Gender-variant behaviour should be tolerated instead of being discouraged.
I never contended that. I said the same thing when I said elsewhere that all attempts to eradicate differences are not only misguided, they are dangerous. People are different and should be allowed to be different. We should embrace the differences.
> I'm not saying there are no differences (although there are virtually no professions that need be gender specific - men and women can be equally proficient at almost everything), but that we should foster an environment where we minimize those differences because the outcomes of not doing that quite literally destroys lives.
I have absolutely 0 interest in minimizing difference. Some people are straight, some are gay. Straights should act a little gay, or gays should try to be straight to minimize differences?
Minimizing differences is not the objective, embracing differences is.
> Sadly I think you have completely missed the point here
What point did I miss? From the very beginning of this thread, you are advocating minimizing differences? And I am saying minimizing differences is bad. There are differences - gender differences, sexual preference difference, personality difference...Minimizing differences is not only misguided, it's wrong.
You must accept that our bodies are different. And we have different hormones. It is clear that there is an actual difference between the sexes.
Why do you have such a hard time accepting this? Gender stereotypes are perfectly normal because we are different.
What I do know is that male suicide rates are climbing. I'm not sure fuzzy gender roles have anything to do with it, but we can all make wild claims without a single scientific article to back it up.