Should women not be distracted from bearing and raising children by science?

[CraigD]

JMJones, in post#18, asks me to provide support for my views. The support is these two already given facts:

 

1. Women do not win as many Nobel Prizes as men.

2. Women do not become Chess Grandmasters.

MacPhee, our site rules require that you back up your claims with links or references, not by making further claims that you do not back up with links or references.

 

The reason for this rule is essentially twofold. First, it allows readers to be sure of the information at our site is accurate, by following the links or looking up the references provided. Second, it requires members to verify their knowledge and opinions before stating them, preventing obvious errors.

 

For example, when writing your previous post, had you attempted to support your claim “women do not become chess grandmasters” with as small an effort as googling “woman chess grandmasters”, you would have been directed by its first find to this list of the 22 female chess players holding GM titles. A little more research would have shown you that, of those 22 female GMs, one, Judit Polgár, is currently in the FIDE top 100 list (at #35), having reached as high as #8, and is currently rising again in ranking.

 

In post #16 and 18, you were asked to back up 9 specific claims you have made in this thread. It shouldn’t be necessary to ask you to back up your claims, but when asked, you should, without fail. In your previous post, you didn’t. You should.

 

These facts must have an explanation. But - are we seriously expected to believe the explanation is that all male scientists, are rampant chauvinists. Constantly engaged in a conspiracy to prevent women scientists from winning Nobel Prizes (and Chess tournaments?) The absurdity of this belief speaks for itself.

In the above, you are committing a informal logical fallacy known as a straw man in which you No one in this thread has suggested that that scientists are rampant chauvinists engaged in conspiracies to prevent women from winning Nobel Prizes and chess tournaments, a claim that is obviously wrong because, among other reasons, many of our readers are male scientists who are not rampant chauvinists engaged in conspiracies to harass female scientists and chess players.

 

You should avoid logical fallacies.

 

I'm really not trying to annoy anyone, just amazed how political correctness has infected scientific discussion in the US!

Despite your claim, you are annoying most of our members, and in generally behaving in a way that leads me to suspect you are an internet troll, one who gets pleasure from provoking reactions from others using internet forums. If you continue to do this, your posting privileges at hypography will be suspended.

[pamela]

What an interesting thread gentlemen.My apologies at not having entered this discussion earlier as I was tending to my sons.Welcome to Hypography MacPhee. It is always a joy and wonderment to me to observe the males in our species and delve into their psyche. Let's take a look at your opening arguement so I can personally address each point. It's after midnight this side of the pond, so hopefully I am awake enough to be clear.

 

The woman is biologically programmed to give birth to children. Then look after them, while they're growing up. So her thoughts must rightly be focussed on this essential task.

Well, dunno about programmed, although I am certainly capable after having 2 sons :P I Never wanted to bear children until I was 28, couldn't be bothered really; was too busy digging around in sciency stuff. Had the kids and taught them whilst still researching

She ought not to be diverted from it, by outward distractions. Like wondering what the stars are. Such ruminations are a male preserve. Which explains why Science is dominated by men. They have the spare time to think about such esoteric things. They don't have to breast-feed the kids.

I will never forget the day I visited the planetarium in elementary school.I fell in love with the universe.Currently have a few telescopes as that desire never changed in 40 years. Breastfeeding is a relaxing time and I wrote more than a few essays during those moments :)

This must, essentially, be true. Otherwise, how do you explain why there are so few successful women scientists. Why don't women win as many Nobel Prizes, as men?

Yeah, my mom was all about trying to get me to do the girly things. Bought me dolls, arranged tea parties, of course if she had served Yorkshire Tea, she may have had better luck. Alas, she did not, so my days were spent in the garage mastering tools.

And - to get back to the point of the OP- history can show no female equivalents of Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Leading their societies to horrible oppression, war and ruin.Could be that women are more likeable, on the whole, than men. More peaceful, less inclined to violent excesses.

I have seen a fair few women who exhibit bloodthirsty qualities and have little regard for life. You really need to consider societal and parental influences.

 

So any nascent, gentle, woman-led society, would be quickly be expunged by neighbouring male-led Romans, Goths and Huns. So would never get written about much, in the history books. Historians, who are mostly men, like violent men-led societies. Because they make more exciting reading.

Fortunate;y for me, I was taught how to read and write at an early age, not so cool for those chicks of yesteryear that were only taught how to clean, cook and change their siblings nappies.

So MacPhee, to sum it all up,despite what society and my mom dictated, I chose to go forward ever learning and seeking knowledge of the sciences and have raised sons that will nurture and care for their young.I have taught them to cook,clean,nappy change and view the stars :)

[Qfwfq]

Doesn't it sound rather sexist?

Az di bobe volt gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde!

 

I'm really not trying to annoy anyone, just amazed how political correctness has infected scientific discussion in the US!

Er, what's it got to do with the US?

[dduckwessel]

 

JMJones, in post#18, asks me to provide support for my views. The support is these two already given facts:

 

1. Women do not win as many Nobel Prizes as men.

2. Women do not become Chess Grandmasters.

 

It certainly appears to me as if there are many more male accomplishments in these areas than females! On the otherhand, could it just be that many women are busy with child rearing and so have less time to pursue these other things!

 

These facts must have an explanation. But - are we seriously expected to believe the explanation is that all male scientists, are rampant chauvinists. Constantly engaged in a conspiracy to prevent women scientists from winning Nobel Prizes (and Chess tournaments?) The absurdity of this belief speaks for itself.

 

My son tried to teach me chess but I just couldn't get into it! Can't see the purpose but perhaps that's the answer! Chess is an intellectual competition, which we all know males thrive at competition (often physical). Is chess then the exercising of the intellectual muscles?

 

I think that women might compete in other ways! There again however, I think that in countries where the old dictates are losing its grasp, women are becoming more interested in what was before considered predominantly male activities. I know in our rural community more women are signing up for target (bow and arrow, gun) practise!

 

The other explanation, put forward repeatedly by Qfwfq, is - "It's the guys that have the balls".

 

I can tell you by observing the males in my family (4 men) the reason why men hold their genitals while they sleep! Being on the ouside of their body the genitals are completely exposed and its the only way to protect that sensitive area during sleep! According to my sons, all of their male friends do this too (it seems universal)! Does this just happen when there are only males together? Does it occur when a male doesn't feel threatened?

 

Back to the OP, if women decide against having children the human race will be in trouble! In that respect is science encouraging the demise of the human race?

 

So much is riding on women deciding to have children, which is bothersome because no one can choose their gender (not that I mind being the gender I am but it's all based on chance)! If women are encouraged to have children then quality not quantity should be the goal.

[Turtle]

It certainly appears to me as if there are many more male accomplishments in these areas than females! On the otherhand, could it just be that many women are busy with child rearing and so have less time to pursue these other things!

...

Back to the OP, if women decide against having children the human race will be in trouble! In that respect is science encouraging the demise of the human race?

 

So much is riding on women deciding to have children, which is bothersome because no one can choose their gender (not that I mind being the gender I am but it's all based on chance)! If women are encouraged to have children then quality not quantity should be the goal.

 

your jackassitude is on a par with mphee. your repetitions of isidious memes concerning the fitness of a gender to some arbitrary role is exactly what is harmful to women & men alike. as my mother used to say, if you don't have anything decent to say, keep your damn mouth shut. good grief!!

[JMJones0424]

DDuck- please try to refrain from making the same logical mistakes that MacPhee is making, for instance when you say, "we all know males thrive at competition" seemingly implying that males are more competitive than females, you have projected your own limited personal experience onto the population of the Earth. This forum requires that assertions be supported by evidence. What evidence do you have that male homo sapiens more than females "thrive at competition"? In answering this, please do not resort to intellectual laziness and use the common logical fallacies *** hoc ergo propter hoc and affirming the consequent.

 

Also, it should be noted that no one has claimed that women should not have children. MacPhee made the claim that women should be restricted from conducting science, specifically, "She ought not to be diverted from it [raising children], by outward distractions. Like wondering what the stars are. Such ruminations are a male preserve." So it seems to me that when you ask, "Back to the OP, if women decide against having children the human race will be in trouble! In that respect is science encouraging the demise of the human race?" you are constructing a strawman. Far from it, the world's human population is growing more rapidly than ever.

 

Finally, have you considered that one's crotch is particularly warm? When I am cold, even in sleep, I may put my hands between my legs. This has nothing to do with trying to protect my genitals when in the vicinity of other males, rather it is because my fingers tend to get cold on cold nights. This technique is equally effective when done by women.

Edited December 28, 2011 by JMJones0424

[dduckwessel]

 

Also, it should be noted that no one has claimed that women should not have children. MacPhee made the claim that women should be restricted from conducting science, specifically, "She ought not to be diverted from it [raising children], by outward distractions. Like wondering what the stars are. Such ruminations are a male preserve." So it seems to me that when you ask, "Back to the OP, if women decide against having children the human race will be in trouble! In that respect is science encouraging the demise of the human race?" you are constructing a strawman. Far from it, the world's human population is growing more rapidly than ever.

 

If anyone should protest it should be me as I'm female but I'm not protesting but merely saying that women's roles were restricted for some time and I think in many respects we're still catching up.

 

The reason I said that it seemed to me there were more male accomplishments was because I recall (I think) this topic on another thread some time ago. I also recall reading a list of Nobel Prize Laureates and that they were predominantly male (which is perfectly all right): http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/

 

Finally, have you considered that one's crotch is particularly warm? When I am cold, even in sleep, I may put my hands between my legs. This has nothing to do with trying to protect my genitals when in the vicinity of other males, rather it is because my fingers tend to get cold on cold nights. This technique is equally effective when done by women.

 

As for the crotch thing, I thought of it because of Qfwfq's remark about balls (which I thought was funny). I wasn't trying to be insulting I simply noted a male pattern of behaviour and deduced it was a protection mechanism but maybe it is for warmth or perhaps it's both?

[JMJones0424]

I'm not sure how your reply to the first section of my post you quoted above applies.

 

 

 

Please understand the fact that there are more male recipients of the Nobel, contrary to MacPhee's claims, is not in and of itself support for the assertion that women are not as good as men at science. Evidence supporting his claim would need to include some causal mechanism making women less fit to think scientifically. No such evidence exists. MacPhee's claim here relies on a logical fallacy to justify his misogyny. (This may be identified incorrectly, if so I apologize for the confusion and will likely be corrected by others. I am learning as well.)

 

Spurious relationship, a form of *** hoc ergo propter hoc

A ) Nobel prizes are awarded to recipients that excel in scientific endeavors; few women have been recipients.

B ) Women do not excel in scientific endeavors.

 

Without attempting to make a causal link between a person being female and a person being unable to think scientifically, there are too many other factors involved to correctly state that B is true.

 

While I appreciate the fact that you may feel you have more of an invested self-interest in protesting MacPhee's misogyny, I disagree. It is the duty of every member of a society to single out those that espouse ideas that are baseless, unjust, and detrimental to society. To propose that women should be kept from critically examining the world around them because they should instead be tending the children is not only untrue (plenty of women do both), but detrimental to society as a whole (Who the hell is MacPhee to decide who gets to wonder what the stars are?). We, men and women, have fought long and hard to rid ourselves of such barbarity, and I do not take lightly its perpetuation.

[Turtle]

If anyone should protest it should be me as I'm female but I'm not protesting but merely saying that women's roles were restricted for some time and I think in many respects we're still catching up. ...

 

gee; no kidding!? not only are you not protesting, you're going right ahead & pertpetuating the memes. what's more you have provided no resource -yet again- to back up your position. your tacit acceptance makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

things are bad enough in the US with the disparity of pay for women doing the same jobs as men, the glass ceiling in business, the derogatory and hateful lyrics in rap, the christian admonitions to women to obey men,and a host of other injustices foisted on women. then there's the muslims in the rest of the world working to keep girls out of school and women out of everything but childbearing & cooking. let's not leave out the extremist jews either.

 

American girl, 8, is target of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel

 

Attacks by ultra-Orthodox Jews who have spit on and yelled at an 8-year-old American girl walking to school in their Israeli neighborhood has prompted a call by Israeli President Shimon Peres to join a protest today against Jewish religious extremists.

 

Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the city of Beit Shemesh, to the west of Jerusalem, consider a new girls school there an encroachment on their territory. Dozens of men in black hats jeer and physically accost the girls almost daily, the students say, according to the Associated Press.

...

 

if you're promoting the subjugating of women -or just giving it a wink & a nod or a shrug- you're culpable in its continuence. despicable!

 

as to the idea that justice and equality for women is something new, that's another piece of trash meme we can surely discount.

 

The Subjection of Women

The Subjection of Women is the title of an essay written by John Stuart Mill in 1869,[1] possibly jointly with his wife Harriet Taylor Mill, stating an argument in favour of equality between the sexes. At the time it was published in 1869, this essay was an affront to European conventional norms of views on the status of men and women.

 

John Stuart Mill credited his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, with co-writing the essay. While some scholars agreed by 2009 that John Stuart Mill was the sole author,[2] it is also noted that some of the arguments are similar to Harriet Taylor Mill's essay, The Enfranchisement of Women, which was published in 1851.[2]

 

...

Mill attacks the argument that women are naturally worse at some things than men, and should, therefore, be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. He says that we simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try - one cannot make an authoritative statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them. An argument based on speculative physiology is just that, speculation.

"The anxiety of mankind to intervene on behalf of nature...is an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing." [6]...

[Qfwfq]

Testosterone.

 

It is not as essential to the societies of today, but there is still a greater abundance of it in guys than in girls. One could hardly doubt this. It is also the reason why there is still a lot of sexist discrimination in the world.

[JMJones0424]

It is also the reason why there is still a lot of sexist discrimination in the world.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying that testosterone is the cause of sexist discrimination? Or are you saying that different testosterone levels in men and women throughout their lifetimes, among many other hormones, are responsible for real differences between the sexes, and therefore indirectly responsible for sexist discrimination? Would you say that melanin is responsible for racist discrimination? Sounds like a convenient excuse to me.

[Qfwfq]

Sounds like a convenient excuse to me.

A cause is not an excuse, it is a cause. I don't get why anyone in their right mind would say the same about melanin and racism, it affects no more than cutaneous complection.

 

The matter is by no means simple, but nonetheless testosterone is the most known and perhaps most representative factor behind secondary sexual characteristics. Would you cast this in doubt? If this is but a convenient excuse, what would you say the cause is? Or would you instead say that, ever since times ancient, wives have been showing their husbands who it is that wears the trousers, just as often as vice versa? No use denying plain facts, so there must be a cause.

[JMJones0424]

The matter is by no means simple, but nonetheless testosterone is the most known and perhaps most representative factor behind secondary sexual characteristics. Would you cast this in doubt?

No, but are you then claiming that sexist discrimination is a secondary sexual characteristic?

 

If testosterone is the cause of sexist discrimination, shouldn't you be able to point to a study linking a particular testosterone level with sexist discrimination? How do you explain the many men that have normal testosterone levels but are not exhibiting sexist discrimination?

 

Is it not possible that sexism is primarily a learned behavior, and has nothing at all to do with hormone levels, similarly to racism has nothing at all to do with melanin levels?

[Turtle]

A cause is not an excuse, it is a cause. I don't get why anyone in their right mind would say the same about melanin and racism, it affects no more than cutaneous complection.

 

The matter is by no means simple, but nonetheless testosterone is the most known and perhaps most representative factor behind secondary sexual characteristics. Would you cast this in doubt? If this is but a convenient excuse, what would you say the cause is? Or would you instead say that, ever since times ancient, wives have been showing their husbands who it is that wears the trousers, just as often as vice versa? No use denying plain facts, so there must be a cause.

 

well, secondary sexual characteristics in humans are things like facial hair, adam's apple, enlarged breasts, & difference in physical size to name a few. as such, these do not cause behavior, and in particular the behavior of denegrating women as we are on about here. so in this regard, i venture that it is our neocortices that are the preeminent cause(s). testosterone notwithstanding, we have a choice whether or not to engage in -whether actively or passively- the subjugation of women. this is true whether the subjugator is male or female.

[dduckwessel]

I'm not sure how your reply to the first section of my post you quoted above applies.

 

You're right I did not answer it, sorry. Here's some interesting research:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6595

 

Please understand the fact that there are more male recipients of the Nobel, contrary to MacPhee's claims, is not in and of itself support for the assertion that women are not as good as men at science.

 

True but the fact there are more male recipients shows there are less women than men competing.

 

Evidence supporting his claim would need to include some causal mechanism making women less fit to think scientifically.

 

It has nothing to do with 'less fit' but everything to do with opportunity. We simply have not had the same opportunities to evolve...but where given the opportunity, we can do every bit as well but as the research link I provided shows, we accomplish it in a different manner.

 

While I appreciate the fact that you may feel you have more of an invested self-interest in protesting MacPhee's misogyny, I disagree.

 

I was not protecting MacPhee necessarily as his attitude is a prevailing one among many males. I did agree with him that if women are not going to take responsibility for child rearing, will men step in? Granted there are men who will, but there are many that won't.

[dduckwessel]

gee; no kidding!? not only are you not protesting, you're going right ahead & pertpetuating the memes. what's more you have provided no resource -yet again- to back up your position. your tacit acceptance makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

I suppose I should say thank you but the insults suggest that you're more interested in making a point (I would not presume to speak for the male of the species). Talk is cheap. If you were truly concerned about the state of women you would have more regard for my opinion!!

 

things are bad enough in the US with the disparity of pay for women doing the same jobs as men, the glass ceiling in business, the derogatory and hateful lyrics in rap, the christian admonitions to women to obey men,and a host of other injustices foisted on women. then there's the muslims in the rest of the world working to keep girls out of school and women out of everything but childbearing & cooking. let's not leave out the extremist jews either.

 

still, there is hope for you...

 

American girl, 8, is target of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel

 

And who's disputing that religious bigotry is wrong?

[JMJones0424]

Alas, I am dizzy trying to follow your replies. But it doesn't matter. The study on statistically significantly different aggressiveness in chess openings between genders across different ability levels is indeed interesting. It does not address your straw man argument that "if women decide against having children the human race will be in trouble! In that respect is science encouraging the demise of the human race?"

 

True but the fact there are more male recipients [of the Nobel prize] shows there are less women than men competing.

 

Not at all. The observation that there are more male recipients of the Nobel shows nothing other than that there are more male recipients of the Nobel. To infer anything else, one must have more information to go on.

 

I was not protecting MacPhee necessarily as his attitude is a prevailing one among many males. I did agree with him that if women are not going to take responsibility for child rearing, will men step in? Granted there are men who will, but there are many that won't.

Perhaps you have misread MacPhee's post. The position you agree with was never stated by MacPhee. He claimed -

The woman is biologically programmed to give birth to children. Then look after them, while they're growing up. So her thoughts must rightly be focussed on this essential task. She ought not to be diverted from it, by outward distractions. Like wondering what the stars are. Such ruminations are a male preserve. Which explains why Science is dominated by men. They have the spare time to think about such esoteric things. They don't have to breast-feed the kids.

 

This must, essentially, be true. Otherwise, how do you explain why there are so few successful women scientists. Why don't women win as many Nobel Prizes, as men?