Comments on: Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and pop gender science is from Uranus http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/02/men-are-from-mars-women-are-from-venus-and-pop-gender-science-is-from-uranus/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:40:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/02/men-are-from-mars-women-are-from-venus-and-pop-gender-science-is-from-uranus/#comment-16562 Erich Vieth Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:18:32 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/02/men-are-from-mars-women-are-from-venus-and-pop-gender-science-is-from-uranus/#comment-16562 To the extent that there are measurable differences between populations of men and women, to what extent is that difference socialized versus innate? And how does one tell the difference? Extremely difficult questions. So difficult that it is a ridiculous foundation for social engineering. Vicki: I agree with your conclusion--chuck the evidence-free psuedo-science. Why care about a child's gender when it comes to being a student, especially when many girls are doing better than many of the boys in "boy" classes (even though, on average, the boys might be scoring better than the girls). Perhaps it's because I am the father of two young daughters, but I find it offensive that so many people are so willing to conclude that girls are biologically less capable when it comes to their math, science, history (or whatever) capabilities. We live in a world where all too many parents (many of them claiming to be neutral and well-intentioned) consciously steer their daughters away from the blocks and toward the dolls. My daughters have been invited to Princess parties where it is obvious that the mothers organizing the parties planted those dress-up-like-a-princess ideas in their daughters' heads a long time prior to the party, through the toys, clothes and movies to which they have chosen to expose their daughters. Our society is working very hard to tell girls that they are different. For those in complete denial, compare the type of clothes made available to girls versus those made available for boys at a mainstream retailer like Target: http://www.target.com/ . I dare you to point out the girls' clothes that shout "I want to be good at math and science!" or "I don't need the approval of others!" Until we rule out that our society (not genes) is providing the "I can't compete" poison to girls, we should critically question the need for sex-based special treatment in academic classes. Might there be some difference between a particular girl and a particular boy some of the time? You bet! Should we presume such a difference? As you wrote, Vicki, we presume such difference only at a potential risk of harm to the girl. Only at the risk of teaching a girl that she is incapable of doing something that she CAN actually do, because she is a girl. To the extent that there are measurable differences between populations of men and women, to what extent is that difference socialized versus innate? And how does one tell the difference? Extremely difficult questions. So difficult that it is a ridiculous foundation for social engineering.

Vicki: I agree with your conclusion–chuck the evidence-free psuedo-science. Why care about a child’s gender when it comes to being a student, especially when many girls are doing better than many of the boys in “boy” classes (even though, on average, the boys might be scoring better than the girls).

Perhaps it’s because I am the father of two young daughters, but I find it offensive that so many people are so willing to conclude that girls are biologically less capable when it comes to their math, science, history (or whatever) capabilities. We live in a world where all too many parents (many of them claiming to be neutral and well-intentioned) consciously steer their daughters away from the blocks and toward the dolls. My daughters have been invited to Princess parties where it is obvious that the mothers organizing the parties planted those dress-up-like-a-princess ideas in their daughters’ heads a long time prior to the party, through the toys, clothes and movies to which they have chosen to expose their daughters. Our society is working very hard to tell girls that they are different. For those in complete denial, compare the type of clothes made available to girls versus those made available for boys at a mainstream retailer like Target: http://www.target.com/ . I dare you to point out the girls’ clothes that shout “I want to be good at math and science!” or “I don’t need the approval of others!”

Until we rule out that our society (not genes) is providing the “I can’t compete” poison to girls, we should critically question the need for sex-based special treatment in academic classes.

Might there be some difference between a particular girl and a particular boy some of the time? You bet! Should we presume such a difference? As you wrote, Vicki, we presume such difference only at a potential risk of harm to the girl. Only at the risk of teaching a girl that she is incapable of doing something that she CAN actually do, because she is a girl.

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/02/men-are-from-mars-women-are-from-venus-and-pop-gender-science-is-from-uranus/#comment-16549 Dan Klarmann Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:24:50 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/02/men-are-from-mars-women-are-from-venus-and-pop-gender-science-is-from-uranus/#comment-16549 Evidence-free rubbish has always been in our schools. But traditionally it was in the material taught, such as the old taste areas of the tongue science exercise. Pure rubbish. Much of what was traditionally taught (and often still is) is tradition that is comforting to textbook buyers. But Columbus thought the world was round, as did anyone at that time with an education. The Mayflower was of the second generation of European immigrants, not a pure forerunner. Madison <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRwiH18QwpU" target="_blank" title="Three Dead Trolls playing 1812 live in Seattle" rel="nofollow">started and lost the war of 1812</a>. But the point of the post is that now (perhaps more than before) the administration of schools is muddled up with feel-good programs to show comforting progressive methods bereft of demonstrable value. Do you remember New Math? ITA spelling? How about the cyclic way in which school segregate and integrate those of differing learning abilities? Yep, either we've leaving kids behind, or we're holding kids back. Pick your battle cry. I have always been a feminine learner. I liked to read, I happily sat quietly to watch and think. I never understood the antic games of boys at recess. But the stealthy and subtle relationship dominance games of girls also disturbed me. Give me a warmly lit room in which to read any time. The locker room analogy strikes me as very apt. Evidence-free rubbish has always been in our schools. But traditionally it was in the material taught, such as the old taste areas of the tongue science exercise. Pure rubbish. Much of what was traditionally taught (and often still is) is tradition that is comforting to textbook buyers. But Columbus thought the world was round, as did anyone at that time with an education. The Mayflower was of the second generation of European immigrants, not a pure forerunner. Madison started and lost the war of 1812.

But the point of the post is that now (perhaps more than before) the administration of schools is muddled up with feel-good programs to show comforting progressive methods bereft of demonstrable value. Do you remember New Math? ITA spelling? How about the cyclic way in which school segregate and integrate those of differing learning abilities? Yep, either we’ve leaving kids behind, or we’re holding kids back. Pick your battle cry.

I have always been a feminine learner. I liked to read, I happily sat quietly to watch and think. I never understood the antic games of boys at recess. But the stealthy and subtle relationship dominance games of girls also disturbed me. Give me a warmly lit room in which to read any time.

The locker room analogy strikes me as very apt.

]]>