And of course it’s a cultural problem, “masculinity” is a cultural trait…

When I saw this cartoon I immediately thought of the Economist.

In the Economist, if a country is pursuing Washington Consensus economic policies and failing then it is the fault of the country, and if a country is pursuing progressive economic policies and failing then it is the fault of the policies.

Determining the association between characteristics and results is how ideology and power interact to shape the debate.

On the whole gender issue.
1) Women faced massive prejudice entering male dominated fields.

2) Essentialism is bullshit.

3) Gender roles strongly influence professional choices. Biomaterials and Bioelectrical engineering include a far greater proportion of women than Materials Science and Electrical engineering. Even though the curriculums are basically the same through sophomore year when people choose their majors.

4) The assholes who degenerated female pioneers in male dominated fields 20 years ago are not the male undergraduates taking classes today. Dismissing the female-skewed gender ratio in undergrad education today makes you every bit the asshole they were.

Frankly, I think kicking more male ass in high-school would be a better solution than quotas for men in undergrad. The perceived incompatibility of masculinity and excellence in school is probably responsible for most of the disparity. It is a cultural problem.

5) Has it occurred to anybody that this attribution game works in reverse to?

ie. I didn’t fail because I’m not good enough, I failed because I’m a woman and people are prejudiced.

People have very good self-protective strategies.

And my point was that, during Victorian times, people were convinced that women were not inherently suited to ANY kind of work outside the home. It was certainly not the case that people thought women might make naturally good coal miners but certainly not nurses. See for example:

Civil War Nurses: “The Angels of the Battlefield”
http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarnurses.htm

Seems it wasn’t such a leap from Victorian “Angel of the House” to Victorian “Angel of the Battlefield”. I googled in vain for a story about Victorian “Angels of the Coal Mine” however.

Why should it suggest that, and not just the opposite? Doesn’t the fact that women have succeeded in so many areas they were formerly thought inherently unsuited for (by talents or inclination) once social barriers were lowered, suggest that something similar will eventually happen in the remaining male-dominated fields?

But there are no male-dominated fields where women have not succeeded (with a few obvious exceptions like ‘infantry soldier’ or ‘NFL quarterback’). Just as males have succeeded in K-12 education and nursing. Just not in equal numbers.

Do you really think it’s a legitimate goal of government to try to move women from teaching and nursing to hard-sciences, engineering and heavy construction and men the reverse? If so—- why?

Should government be trying to equalize women’s and men’s years of labor-force participation and engagement in part-time vs full-time work? Again, if so…why?

Why should it suggest that, and not just the opposite? Doesn’t the fact that women have succeeded in so many areas they were formerly thought inherently unsuited for (by talents or inclination) once social barriers were lowered, suggest that something similar will eventually happen in the remaining male-dominated fields?

“Wow! You are just as good at math as I am! I believe this to be true! Your mistake is clearly caused by my failure to create a comfortable environment! Please don’t report me to the department chair for the sexist behavior I exhibited by noticing your error! (Is anyone from the faculty listening?). Sexism is doubleplus ungood! ”

Sk

Well, upthread you contended that women are inherently more interested in that kind of work (meaning nursing). Obviously we agree that there are lots more factors at work than “inherent interest,” but you did say it was a factor and I was pointing out that 150 years ago, some people were equally convinced that women were NOT inherently suited to nursing.

That was during an era when people were thoroughly convinced that women did not (or should not) have interest in ANY sort of career outside the home (as in the Victorian “Angel in the House”).

Upper-class white women, maybe. I’m not a social historian and can’t pretend to have a thorough understanding of this time period, but I don’t buy your depiction as a general rule.

That women have long become the absolute dominant majority in some previously male-dominated fields should suggest that there’s something other than social prejudice going on in fields where that has not happened, shouldn’t it?

Or it could suggest that social prejudice works powerfully to guide people disproportionately into certain career paths based on gender. I know a man who applied to be a public school teacher in Boston in the 1960s. He was told that men were not allowed to teach elementary school, only junior and senior high school.

What of it? That was during an era when people were thoroughly convinced that women did not (or should not) have interest in ANY sort of career outside the home (as in the Victorian “Angel in the House”). That women have long become the absolute dominant majority in some previously male-dominated fields should suggest that there’s something other than social prejudice going on in fields where that has not happened, shouldn’t it? And, obviously, if the numbers of men & women are roughly equal, and if women are going to have lower workforce participation than men (which they do), then the existence of some jobs that are mostly female (nursing, teaching, etc) necessarily means that there will be male dominated fields (do the math).

Vivian: Slocum—I am amazed that someone as thoughtful as you (usually are) can put together a sentence like “so, in general, women still have to worry less about being the main source of support for their families, and don’t have much incentive to push themselves to maximize their income or job status to attract a mate.”

Why not trip off to the Census website and see how ‘in general’ that ‘have to’ turns out to be?

And I’m amazed when people can deny the completely obvious. In general means, for example, that women are far more likely to spend time out of the labor force completely or work part-time during their adult lives. It doesn’t take much googling to discover this:

“First, women, married women in particular, are much more likely than men to work part-time, either for their entire working career or for part of their careers. In 2004, about 25 percent of married women in the labor force aged 25-54 worked part-time as compared to only 5 percent of men. Second, women have fewer years in the labor force than men. Among retired workers, women spent 32 years in the labor force as compared to 44 years for men.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/earlyshow/contributors/raymartin/main2080349.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_2080349

Obviously, there are many women who’ve always had to work to support themselves—but there are also lots of women (but almost no men) who haven’t. Hence the statistics.

Then just for laughs, explore the premise that maybe women who take jobs in fields where one can easily leave the workforce and return, just maybe that’s not a free choice so much as a forced choice or lack of choice.

Yep, you did give me a laugh. I know a number of men who’ve kvetched about their wives not working, but I know none at all who’ve complained that their wives won’t quit. Sometimes it’s just funny, but sometimes not so much. A while ago I had lunch with a 40-something guy stuck in a job he despises, but he has no choice because his wife’s ‘job’ is selling Tupperware (or something similar)—which activity, last year, may have almost broken even. When women have a man around the house who won’t get a job, they’re often encouraged to “throw the bum out”. That’s not really a viable option for men, though.

I mean, hell, even feminists have noticed and are arguing about whether ‘opting out’ is a sensible or foolish choice for women to make (but not whether or not it’s a choice):

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/working-moms

Eszter: Thanks to Watson Aname, Witt, Vivian, Dfrelon, Jdkbrown, Nitish and others for taking on the various commenters here who just don’t care to see the real purpose of this cartoon.

Oh, c’mon—the real purpose is political. As is the trumpeting of the results that ‘prove’ there’s no difference between male and female math abilities, which results can be then used to justify the application of title IX to technical fields in academia that are still male-dominated. Or are you suggesting that the purpose of the cartoon was to start a discussion about ‘confirmation bias’ where the fact that bias in the cartoon was about women and math was purely incidental?

So, it seems to me that, at this point in time, this is, perhaps, merely a manifestation of childishness, and not necessary a burning social issue. There is Summers, of course, but perhaps he is just a nerd, autistic nerd, one sick puppy.

So, can I argue that the idea that most men stereotype women this way has become a bit of stereotype itself?

G – stop plagiarizing my thoughts.;-)

Thanks to Watson Aname, Witt, Vivian, Dfrelon, Jdkbrown, Nitish and others for taking on the various commenters here who just don’t care to see the real purpose of this cartoon. Its meaning has now been explained quite explicitly by several people in this thread and several examples of this in real life have been shared throughout the discussion. Those who are still not willing to get it won’t get it after more explanations and examples either, because getting it is not their true intention here (trolling anyone?).