Women being "Dragged Along"

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Women gained equal rights quite some time ago, and for good reason. But women and men are not completely equal. Most people recognize this, and have absolutely no problem pointing it out.

Except when it comes to intelligence!!! Just try telling a women that she is less intelligent, and quickly cover your balls :wink: But it is true, at least for analytical capability.

Just as there is a slight dimorphism between men, and women in the area of size, muscle, hair, and height. There is also a slight dimorphism in analytical capability. These slight differences at times are just that. You won’t much notice them, but in some cases they are quite profound( you don’t see many female Robin Williams running around!!!)

This dimorphism like any other comes to us via sexual selection. In many cases whichever sex the selection pressure is on, the other side gets “dragged along”. It seems in most species that the males prefer the more ‘naked’ women. I definetly don’t enjoy mustaches on my partners(unless they are brazilian!!! :blush: ) So the selection for hairlessness was on the women, and men got dragged along. Men are more hairier then women, because we’ve been dragged along, and most likely will never catch up.

When it comes to analytical capability, women are being dragged along. The selection pressure has been on the males to “prove themeselves”, to the domestic bliss strategies that predominates most of our culture. Since the pressure has been on the males men naturally have more analytical capability. Men have had to become smarter, and smarter to win over the women. Women have been dragged along, they had to become smarter or else their domestic bliss strategy would never work!!

IQ tests have been modified to judge emotional intelligence, to make the equality between the sexes apparent. But sorry to break it to the women, you really are at a disadvantage when it comes to analytical capability. The sciences, and maths aren’t predominated by men because its a “mans world” they are predominated by men bacause they have a superior analytical capability.

Sorry ladies you really aren’t as smart as men. :stuck_out_tongue:

2

Actually, biologists are still very much out on that one.

If lumped together as a group, Women actually tend to outperform men in intellectual tasks. If you look at the statistics in math and science classes, men are more likely to be at the extreme tails (both high and low), while women occupy the higher-middle ground.

There is a dimorphism in brain physiology, but our neuroscience isn’t developed enough to tell what that means yet.

Yes, there is a dimorphism, but your post is taking it beyond the supported evidence.

3

Bad argument, wrong conclusion…

4

…so is this argument in any way scientifically supported, other than the fact that your head is two inches larger than any other woman’s?

5

im curious as to why there are less women in the technology and science fields than there are men.

6

It would appear that the main reason is lack of interest - women just don’t seem as interested in such fields as men. Years of positive discrimination have produced, it seems, only a marginal shift in the numbers, so it doesn’t appear to be a matter of women not being capable or of institutions being resistant. It literally seems like women just aren’t as interested as men in such disciplines.

And, I’d add, it doesn’t matter. I’m more concerned with why over two thirds of teachers are women, which is a potentially much more influential gender bias or imbalance.

7

but why are they uninterested? science is so cool! no really though… i really enjoy technology even if its just reading about the advancements why dont women?

im not biased im not saying that they cant im just curious.

it does matter though. this is why nerds cant get laid. there are no girls around in the nerd fields. how can they pass on their superior genes?

true teachers is an imbalance. i find it less as i advance in my schooling. probably because i take mostly science courses but maybe its a maternal thing?

8

A clue can be found on the BBC:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/educ … 630808.stm
[i]
Around 70% of the 11-15 year olds questioned said they did not picture scientists as “normal young and attractive men and women”.

Among those who said they would not like to be scientists, reasons included: “Because you would constantly be depressed and tired and not have time for family”, and “because they all wear big glasses and white coats and I am female”.[/i]

Women are still evaluated primarily by the way they look. Hollywood,TV (reality,fiction,news,etc), every form of popular media reinforces this message. How many unattractive female celebrities/icons are there? Now compare it to the number of unattractive male celebrities/icons…aha…now it all makes sense.

It’s like the mating habits of the animal kingdom reverses in human beings.

Geeze…I was just sidetracked by an email with a link about women who “pass” as men by wearing fake penises and binding their boobs…perhaps that’s the answer for females with an interest in science and technology.

Why can’t you guys just dance when you walk or paint yourself in bright colors,textures,communist russian asswipe uncomfortable shoes, and we can just meander over when we feel like it? Why is all the pressure on us?

9

so its still sexism? thats annoying but not surprising.

i dont know… the grass is always greener on the other side. in this case though. the grass is actually greener on the male side.

on a side note… anyone read the book self made man by norah vincent? i havent actually im just wondering if its good.

10

Dear Shyster,

Not really, because it is the women themselves who are primarily evaluating themselves by the way that they look as well as the men around them. If these young women (or girls) say that they don’t want to be a scientist because its an ‘ugly’ job one shouldn’t be blaming the rest of the world, one should be blaming the people actually holding those opinions. If women are superficial then they can’t blame ‘a man’s world’ for it…

Shy, you’ve completely manipulated the evidence in the article. The article didn’t suggest at all that women wanted to go into science and technology but couldn’t, it said that they didn’t want to. This is, frankly, feminist crap…

Because ‘you’ play up to it. No-one forces women to get obsessed with their appearance, least of all me. I actually find made-up women less attractive, on the whole. Besides, women don’t try to look good to impress men, they try to look good to impress other women…

11

In our home I am the only female living with two males, husband and 21 yr old son all three of us are above average intelligence. As far as analyzing better, That is too funny. I am the problem solver, mechanic and search wise.
They may know their engines and how to repair them but, if something is puzzling and frustrating them, I walk out listen to it and point out that the thingy may not be doing it right with funny looking whoozit. Most of the time I am right. It kills them that I don’t know the proper names but, I do comprehend the functions.
I find it all boring. It feels too easy to learn Science and mechanics so why bother.
We all are left handed and brown eyed. Those genetic traits are supposed to make a difference too. I do not believe that, it is what is packed in your skull that makes a difference not your gender or your physical traits.

12

From what I find (albeit in my limited sample) women tend to enjoy the arts more than anything else. Personally what I see with women is a tendency to find something that will reflect what they’re thinking and feeling in material ways (maybe a little more than men do).

Anyhow, the jury is still out on this, but for the sake of debate:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm

13

Yes I do remember this from highschool and university. Seriously, that point seems dead on. women were almost always in the higher-middle ground. I personally was always in the middle ground in both highschool, and university. I just never really gave a shit, and only showed up for highschool about 2 times a week. They tried to hold me back for lack of attendence, but I fought it, and won since I was still above 70 average in all the ciriculum. I’d only do the tests, and never any of the assignments. When university came I partied my ass of, and every assigment I did I almost always did the night before. I learned advanced calculus in one night (last year of highschool), and macro economics 101 in 6 hours. Got above 80 in calculus, and aced the macro. Look I’m not saying this because I’m trying to show the world I’m smart, I’m saying this because most of the other guys were in the same boat as me. It seemed to be that many of the males that I’ve studied with mostly lacked interest, and just kind of skirted by. Some men had very high drive, and excelled. This seems to me to be a general trend.

Most women in general do better in scholastic endeavours, and also within the workforce I find. Seriously I don’t argue that. I totally agree with it. But, and heres my point, most women seem to work their asses off!!! In school they are almost always the most organized people, they try hard, and thus they get results. But men always do end up on top, the men who put all of their effort into their work.

Yes I certainly have. I don’t dispute that. Its my personal theory, and I thought it might be fun to throw it up here, and see how people responded.

Oh I am definetly taking the arguement a bit farther, but I didn’t take a super leap into the unkown or anything. It was Susan Blackmore’s ( a very intelligent women, who I thoroughly enjoyed reading) theory of sexual selection via mementic evolution, that I married with the “dragged along effect” that I used here.

Thats bullshit. I refuse to believe that lack of interest is the cause, its just too big a jump. The arguement is very weak. Women are very very interested in business these days, and they are excelling!!! Yet they still fall way behind in mathematics, and sciences, probably because its too difficult for many once they reach a certain level. Where business is not.

Yes I am sure that you’re ery intelligent, and that science and mechanics are too easy, but maybe for altruistic purposes you could turn your interests to them and give humanity a bit of a push?? Maybe the pertubitive methods in string theory could be made more concrete if you could just point out that the wonkey metonky equation should be used with the funny looking method, while invoking the Cpt Invarythingy, which might just then describe the geometry of the true Cabluoooy Yaaay suckers.

14

Ah, another dick waving, insecure male who feels threatened by the inferior female. LOL, Rounder do something useful with your mouth and go bite your balls. :unamused:

BTW: Generally, regardless of the discipline I earned A’s and this includes university math and science classes. I just did not find math interesting, numbers bore me; science was fun, but ate up too much time in the labs. Hence, my choice of English and History. Enjoyed Anthropology, Military Tactics, Guerrila Tactics, Political Extremism, Sociology (basically a pseudo science), etc.

15

LOL, brain size has zero to do with intellect. Einstein’s brain was smaller that average. Many mentally retarded have large brains. Hum, Stephen J. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man comes to mind. Basically, science refutes the connection between brain size and intellect.

16

Hi SIATD, this may be true, but there are equal numbers of women and men in the English Department. Do you have a link.

Also, the K-12 system in the US is pushing for more men to work in elementary system. That is, many men are now working in the K-3 grades, rather than 9-12. Too little male influence in so many childrens lives.

Right, numbers tend to bore me. I do enjoy reading regarding the various math and science developments. Discover and Popular Science are interesting and understandable for lay people to understand.

17

Hum, we need to find some studies regarding how many men and women are teaching, what areas, and grade level for insight.

18

One of the major reasons that Women don’t do as well in science and engineering is . . . well, they’re incubators. You can’t exatically do a ton of southern and northern blots (or anything else with radiation) when you are preggers, similarly, you can’t work with many of the same toxic chemicals and/or organisms that are the bread-and-butter of science.

On top of that, if they take any sort of maternity leave, they can forget getting published. Science has a very hardline ‘what have you done for me lately’ attitude. I know that AAAS has actually started giving out scholarships to women trying to break back into the workforce after a maternity leave.

There are tons of female post-docs, but very few female profs, and most of those are childless. Men don’t need to worry about having babies, so we don’t have a built-in sabotage setup for our career.

19

An interesting article regarding female and brain functions. Men do well in math, Women do well in speech.

cerebromente.org.br/n11/ment … omens.html

Sounds like a balance. Which does not make men superior in all disciplines Rounder.

Male ego is so sad. Get over it, there is always someone bigger, smarter, nicer or meaner around the corner.

20

Aspacia wrote

Hi Aspacia,
I wonder if you meant to say, instead, that intellect is not a linear function of brain-size. For obviously, brain-size has quite a lot to do with intellect. Contrast, for example, insect-sized brains with canine-sized brains. And moving to the limit, we might suppose that a brain of zero-dimension would possess zero intellect.

As for the virtue of intellect: The idea of judging intrinsic human value primarily on the basis of intellect would be like me insisting that human strength ought to be judged primarily on the basis of how many one-armed pushups one could do in a year’s time. Given that I do just under ten-thousand one-armed pushups a year, such an insistence would be self-serving, to say the least. A modestly sized, nondescript looking woman that I know travels around the world to arm wrestle other women (she just returned from Japan, having cleaned their clock). Aside from the fact that she could probably break my arm (we’ve never tried), suppose she insisted that human value ought to be decided on the basis of arm wrestling?

And so it goes with value verses intelligence in a wider context. Odd, isn’t it, that our threshold for minimal respectable intelligence just so happens to rest slightly below the average intelligence exhibited by humans? It’s as though a Cheetah were to qualify intrinsic life-value, and judge all other life, on the ability to accelerate quickly. I touched on this earlier, in a thread about vegetarianism

It has been remarked, that instead of our erecting radio beacons to alert other possible civilizations of our presence, we ought instead, to be hell-bent on building camouflage. For pity the day humanity is discovered by a more intelligent, alien civilization; if, that is, higher intelligence automatically treats lesser intelligence the way we’ve treated the other animal species here on earth.

Just my two-cents,
Michael