Staying free from feminist lies

  • Thread starter Thread starter unitive_mystic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesnt matter because even if it isn’t your opinion you could still entertain the main point of my post.
 
As the mother of a little girl approaching school age, I’ve become far more aware at how much our society discourages girls from enjoying the study of science from a very young age. Math, not so much, but even topics that are considered “girl territory” seem to be purposefully rebranded as “nature” or even “magic”. I might be extra sensitive to this because I’m a teacher and I’ve seen the test scores for science and I know there’s no excuse for it. Our school’s science scores have absolutely skyrocketed since we hired a science lab specialist, but the girls’ collective score is still incredibly low. I think it’s due to the teacher being a man and while he does everything he can think of to make their topics and experiments fun and engaging, the scenarios and projects he does with the kids are all noticeably boy-oriented. It doesn’t stop the girls who have a really strong love of science or have a general drive to excel at everything they do, but for most of the others, they seem to get the message that this is “boy stuff”. One of the things I really like about the school my daughter has just started attending is that they acknowledge the “science” in everything. They have cooking classes. Cooking is science. They have nature lessons outside in the garden. Gardening is science. They talk about the acoustics of sound when they are learning about different instruments in the music room. Music is science. The only purpose of science isn’t to make catapults to kill the villain of whatever video game is currently popular or to make a track for Luke Skywalker’s space vechicle, or to make a chemical compound that will turn our into a mutant superhero. (Which isn’t even a real thing!)
 
I’m curious: What does “boy-oriented” mean in this context? Does it mean the examples you gave at the end of your post? Because if such activities are more attractive to boys, might not the study of science in general be more attractive to boys than to girls? Certainly I have enjoyed life sciences more than the physical sciences, mainly owing to my weakness in mathematics. Of course, I would not extrapolate my own preferences to others, but I suspect that boys are more inclined to math and science even if taught without video games.
 
I think what Allegra means is that science is everywhere but it doesn’t get taught that way. Most mainstream schools only acknowledge science within the context of the examples at the end of her post. Since those things appeal to boys more than girls (in general), kids get the message that science is for boys more than girls.

But if we were to teach science in those examples AS WELL AS in cooking, gardening, and other more traditional girl interests, kids would see that science is gender neutral. Something that can be applied and loved across the board.

I’m one of those who fell for the idea that if I loved girl type things, I couldn’t also love math and science. Now that I’ve landed in a job that uses a lot of computer programming, statistics, etc, I’m having to learn these skills (that it turns out I am good at and love doing) at 30+ years of age.
 
Women on average are more drawn to the life sciences.

In the US isn’t interest in the sciences generally discouraged? For boys excellence in sports, particularly football is more rewarded while in girls it’s being pretty and popular that is more rewarded.

Only geeks and nerds are supposed to be interested in science.
 
By “boy-oriented”, I mean that the teacher uses themes such as cartoons, video games, shows, sports, and popular-media that is popular almost exclusively with the boys when designing his lessons, projects, experiments, and scenarios. His Scientific Method poster has Transformers on it. His STEM lab rules poster has all-male cartoon characters. Their construction project models often include Ninja Turtle cars and action figures when they could just as easily use normal cars and gender neutral figurines. Even the things that he gives out as prizes are generally “boy toys”. I don’t think he’s doing it purposefully, but that’s what he thinks is cool, or what he believes he would have thought of as cool as a kid.
 
The vast majority of what our students are tested on would be considered “life sciences”, but the girls still fall behind. I don’t believe women are naturally more drawn to other sciences. I think science is almost exclusively marketed to children as a “boy thing”. I think it might be related to your second point though. In society, it’s considered okay for a boy to be an outlier and think outside of the box. Boys can be “geeks” in a subject that isn’t considered mainstream and that’s fine. Girls, on the other hand, are expected to stay inside the social lines and make people comfortable Girls who fail to do this are openly criticized from a very young age. A boy who is “too smart” might be your boss some day. A girl who is "too smart’ is going to be alone except for her cats.
 
There’s actually some evidence that even just having women highlighted or female figures influences things. Kids pick up very early on what boys and girls are “supposed” to like. If they see all boys in their materials and it’s all taught by men then girls get the idea it’s not for them.
jlc2k2 said:
I’m one of those who fell for the idea that if I loved girl type things, I couldn’t also love math and science. Now that I’ve landed in a job that uses a lot of computer programming, statistics, etc, I’m having to learn these skills (that it turns out I am good at and love doing) at 30+ years of age.
Click to expand...
Yeah - for me it was the opposite in many ways. I loved math and science and nerdy type things, so I couldn’t be “girly” and like wear dresses and makeup or enjoy gardening (cooking, thankfully, was an exception, largely due to my father loving it so much).
 
I remember as a teenager being given advice by other women that it was frowned upon for girls to be too smart because boys won’t like her. My father told me to be myself and said he would consider it an insult if a girl purposefully dumbed herself down to make him feel comfortable. To him it smacked of condescension. I think he’s right. He also told me that what attracted him to my mother was her intelligence as well as her beauty. My mother was a striking beauty in her youth.

As for me, I was always geeky and my parents encouraged this tendency. I do actually fit the stereotype of a socially awkward geeky single woman but with no cats, maybe dogs.
 
Last edited:
Baking is think is more technical than cooking but it also demands a lot of artistic skills.

Pastry chefs are highly regarded in the culinary world even more so than mere chefs.
 
I wasn’t disagreeing with Allegra’s school’s approach, which I consider to be a good one, but wonder if she is correct that girls are being discouraged from the sciences because of “boy-oriented” activities rather than their own inclinations.
 
Well, we’re getting a new science teacher next school year, so maybe we’ll get a chance to see. The new science curriculum is really engaging, but I suspect that the current teacher is alienating the girls a bit with all the action figures and boy cartoons. In a way, I wonder if he’s over-compensating for the rest of the school not being “boyish enough.” There’s some truth to the idea that it’s extra hard for elementary-age boys to spend hours at a time sitting in a desk. (it’s hard for both, but especially for boys.) Hands-on type activities like the projects done in the STEM lab are exactly what the boys need to equal out their school day. But girls need and benefit tremendously from those types of activities as well. I think that if the lessons were made more gender-neutral, the girls would dive right in. I hope so, cause my girl start kindy next year!
 
I hope your daughter enjoys school, and it’s great you’ve got a good science program! All students should be trained to think scientifically, whether or not they enjoy learning organ systems or calculating chemical equations. And small children are natural scientists.
 
Allegra said:
I’ve become far more aware at how much our society discourages girls from enjoying the study of science from a very young age.
Click to expand...
Please let me give some stats: a couple of decades ago a gender ratio between 1:50 to 1:25 in engineering was not uncommon. These days that has changed to between 1:8 to 1:1. [You can see a quick shift in relatively short time.] This depends on the specific college with mechanical engineering usually having the worst ratio whilst chemical engineering actually tended to have more woman than man . But don’t let any such preconceptions dissuade you, for the most part it’s becoming a thing of the past.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
Women on average are more drawn to the life sciences.

In the US isn’t interest in the sciences generally discouraged? For boys excellence in sports, particularly football is more rewarded while in girls it’s being pretty and popular that is more rewarded.

Only geeks and nerds are supposed to be interested in science.
Click to expand...
As a man who studied science at school and university in the 70’s and 80’s, and has worked since 1985 as a computer programmer, I thoroughly endorse this observation.

Science, engineering and intellectual fields of all sorts are not encouraged as manly pursuits.

In my youth as I was veering towards these things I recall being told by one woman that I was “a walking dictionary” (not a compliment!), and another “You are in danger of becoming an intellectual”, as a serious criticism and warning to change course. I recall my mother (widowed) being dated by a professional philosopher and she and a female friend sneering at him, as “too nice”. “Wee Thomas” they called him. As a boy I sharply observed women’s scorn for lack of virility.

Yes - “geeks and nerds”, and also “eggheads”, “intellectuals”, “shiny arses”.

“Real men” do sports, trades or work their butts off in business to make a lot of money. These tend to be the more successful in society and attractive to women (which is actually quite important to us). If a man is in an intellectual pursuit, even business, he’d better make a lot of money to be considered a success as a man. Poor musicians, teachers, shop-assistants etc. have little kudos.

I have also seen no discrimination or bias against women in my studies and working life. On the contrary, women receive positive discrimination, both in job policies and working life. I have seen several cases of a women getting away with poor behaviour which would be punished in a man. Curiously, these were the same ones who have made a big deal about being “a woman”, but most women just get on with the job like everyone else.

No, I’m not complaining one bit. Life is tough. I am pointing out that there are biases for men to overcome in STEM also - and we do it. “Nerd” is not an attractive epithet.
 
Last edited:
I’m glad to hear that the gender discrepancy in the most advanced studies of science seem to be disappearing. I think that you’d admit, however, that while engineering is an invaluable career in our society, it only represents a very small percentage of the general population, and the vast majority of people benefit from a basic understanding of the sciences and scientific method, regardless of their career. For that reason, I’m still concerned when looking at the trends of achievement in the general population.
 
Allegra said:
I think that you’d admit, however, that while engineering is an invaluable career in our society, it only represents a very small percentage of the general population
Click to expand...
Engineering within science and technology (the “exact sciences”) is actually very representative and historically sported some of the worst disparages. That’s why I feel the specific example is illustrative.
Allegra said:
For that reason, I’m still concerned when looking at the trends of achievement in the general population.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting observation that I can’t comment on (I spend most of my time working on projects in a office locked away from society in general). For lack of experience and observation. I would tend to believe that regarding graduate level education gender disparities have been mostly put away with (although that shift is of recent making - and extremely dependent on country and culture, I speak from a European viewpoint). The trend to put away with those differences is ongoing, as I have seen from examples both from Africa, Asia, and South America.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top