Controversial paper to enrage all you feminists

<p>So what do you guys think do you think there is a physical reason why the majority of women don't pursue science /technology</p>

<p>The Evolutionary and Psychological Roots of the Gender Gap</p>

<pre><code>While some people find it hard to accept, there is a clear gender gap between males and females in the fields of science and technology. By better understanding the reasons for this gap we can better understand how or if we can close it. Most people agree that the gender gap is rooted in the sociological development of females throughout history (Lee). Since the beginnings of the civilized world men have generally dominated the fields of math, science and leadership: “There is not, nor has there ever been, any society that even remotely failed to associate authority and leadership in suprafamilial areas with the male. There are no borderline cases.” (Goldberg) Only recently have women been given equal opportunity to even participate in these fields. However a question arises: why were men ever dominant over women in these fields? And more so… now that women are given equality what factors stop them from being equivalent to males in these fields? The fact that men were ever superior to women in these fields shows that early on in the development of the human specie males became specialized to perform certain tasks, while females were specialized for other tasks. This suggests that differences in the brain due to fundamental evolutionary characteristics could (in addition to social factors) play a role in the gender gap today.

Critics disregard this simple theory that differences in the male and female brain lead to the gender gap as “chauvinistic” and cite examples of Marie Curie or other renowned female scientists. One must always remember that when dealing with biological pools there will be huge amounts of diversity, and there will always be outliers. In order to better understand things on a broad level, we must also simplify things down to a broad level. On a personal level these findings should generally be disregarded due to the huge variances in the biological pool. There certainly ARE females that may excel at math and science; however they are significantly less than the amount of males. This produces another complex social problem: because there are fewer females in the human race that excel at math, the young females that could possibly excel at math or science have fewer role models (Symonds) and are less likely to pursue math and science. This creates a self-inducing loop, which leads to fewer and fewer women pursuing science and technology.
</code></pre>

<p>While we can certainly say that the lack of female role models in math/science is a factor in the gender gap, it still does not fully explain why males of all ages outperform females in math and science. On a broad level today males outperform females at early ages on visual-spatial reasoning tests (Lee). A test was conducted on 780 3-6-year olds asking to identify 3d objects that were “unfolded” flat. Males performed better than females on 8 of 11 tests. Females on the other hand outperformed males on verbal measures. If we look at the development of the human specie through time we can clearly see why males are so much better at visual spatial reasoning while women supercede men in emotional and verbal measures. Tricia Lee and Mike Brzozowski, researchers at Stanford university explain: “men had to manufacture tools, weapons, transport devices – things had to be symmetrical so better spatial skills might have developed. Hunting also required spatial abilities.” On the other hand: “Women gathered food, cared at home for children so had to have better recall of location of objects.” These two widely differing roles led to different evolutionary traits being passed down. A 1995 study of MRI scans at Oxford University showed women have a stronger connection (posterior part of corpus callosum is larger and more bulbously shaped) between the two hemispheres. This means that women use both the right hemisphere (Visual patterns, music, emotions, spatial relationships) as well as the left hemisphere (Speech production and comprehension) when solving visual spatial problems (Pearlson). This may be a disadvantage for things that require more organization in the brain. Conversely, females do much better on verbal tests than males due to this same connection because “the language centers of both left and right hemispheres can communicate with greater ease” (Lee). MRI scans in a John Hopkins University study show inferior parietal lobule (responsible for spatial abilities) is 6% larger in men, left parietal lobes larger as well.
“Scientists at Johns Hopkins have discovered "striking" differences between men and women in a part of the brain linked with ability to estimate time, judge speed, visualize things three-dimensionally and solve mathematical problems. The differences, the researchers say, may underlie well-known trends that vary by sex, such as the fact that more men than women are architects, mathematicians and race-car drivers.” (ScienceDaily) These vast differences may have developed due to the separate evolutionary function of the male human in contrast to the female human.
Another study was conducted at Stanford University in 1991 that showed the influence of testosterone and estrogen on visual spatial and verbal reasoning scores. Men with low normal range of testosterone did better in spatial tests with additional testosterone. Women during times of high estrogen levels scored higher on verbal fluency tests, low estrogen levels led to higher spatial test scores (Lee). The influence of the male and female hormone were clear in the results of the test, showing that there are natural factors that may influence the gender gap.
These studies again, in no way imply that ALL females should pursue humanities, and not science. Once again, due to the huge amount of diversity in the human gene pool no single person can ever be classified into a category based on one trait alone (be it race, gender, orientation etc.) But general trends do reflect reality; the studies simply clarify why there is such a large gap between men and women in the field of math and science.<br>
The genetic differences between men and women are clear, yet people are still skeptical about there being inherent psychological differences. Of the 23 chromosomes in each cell men and women share 22 but one is different. One chromosome of female humans has two X chromosomes while males have a single X and a single smaller Y chromosome. It is this Y chromosome "that sets the machinery of sex development in motion and results in all the genetic differences that there are between a man and a woman." (Scheinfield) Skeptics of the evolutionary theory do not believe that a fundamental difference in men and women (right down to the very basic cellular level) could result in why male children are more interested in certain types of things (cars, weapons, building things) and female children in others (nurturing, dolls, tea parties). The alternate theory explaining the disparities between males and females come primarily from the fields of psychology and sociology (Bradley University). This theory is known as “Sex role typing”. The sex-role-typing theory states that from an early age children are able to understand gender roles and stereotype themselves to those roles: girls see other girls playing with dolls and associate that with themselves; meanwhile boys see other boys playing with Lego’s and associate that with themselves (Wikipedia). Anyone who has seen or had children can see the differences, boys take interest in vastly different things than do girls. A study was conducted by McGhee and Frueh (1975) which showed that at young ages children exposed to more television had even more biased gender roles than those that were not. Their viewing time was measured, and then the children were administered the 'it' scale. The ‘it scale’ is where “the child is given a drawing of a stick figure (it), before being asked to select what objects 'it' would prefer, from a host of pictures of objects which have associations with stereotyped sex roles.” (Ingham)
The aim of this test is the ‘it’ provides a measure of the strength of the childrens' gender role preference. This study showed that children are very perceptive of social and gender roles they view; even at very young ages, and readily apply them. Furthermore a survey done by the science camp Actua found that the second highest reason that the girls did pursue math and science was because they had a relative that was an engineer or scientist. Stanford studies also showed that females that participated in video games and action-adventure games through male siblings were more likely to pursue “techie” fields as opposed to regular females. This shows that the gender gap is not completely due to inherent lack of ability but that there are also social factors.
The question of why the gender gap exists is much like the age-old question of the chicken and the egg. Are women not participating in math and science because there are gender differences? Or is it due to the fact that women do not participate (Sex role typing) that gender differences become prevalent? It is impossible to have a definite answer. However research has shown that both the factors of Sex role typing and genetic differences play a role in the creation of the gender gap. If one is to take an evolutionary perspective it seems obvious that the genetic differences early on in our development created different roles for both men and women, and while these do not play as large a part in modern society; they still lead to small disparities in ability which are corroborated by sex-role-typing and social influence. The gender gap is not a single faceted issue, but like most complex social issues has causations rooted in many realms: ranging from psychology to neurology to sociology.</p>

<p>Works Cited
The Importance of Engaging Girls in Science and Engineering. Actua Girls Camps. Canadian Memorial Engineering Foundation. 30 May 2006 <a href="http://www.cemf.ca/Outreach/StatisticsResearch/Girls.pdf"&gt;http://www.cemf.ca/Outreach/StatisticsResearch/Girls.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br>
The Importance of Engaging Girls in Science and Engineering. Actua Girls Camps. Canadian Memorial Engineering Foundation. 30 May 2006 <a href="http://www.cemf.ca/Outreach/StatisticsResearch/Girls.pdf"&gt;http://www.cemf.ca/Outreach/StatisticsResearch/Girls.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br>
Ingham, Heather, comp. Children, Television and Gender Roles. Apr. 1997. The University of Wales. 21 May 2006 <a href="http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/hzi9402.html"&gt;http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/hzi9402.html&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br>
"It's Not Just Einstein: Study Shows Differences in Male Brain." Science Daily. <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991209161140.htm"&gt;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991209161140.htm&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br>
Lee, Tricia, comp. Bridging the Gender Gap. Stanford University. <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ezozo/gap/childhood/genetic.html"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/~zozo/gap/childhood/genetic.html&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br>
Pearlson, Godfrey D. "Sex Differences in the Inferior Parietal Lobule." Cerebral Cortex os 9 (1999): 896-901.<br>
Scheinfield, Amram. Your Heredity and Environment. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co., 1964.<br>
Shotick, Joyce, and Paul R. Stephens. "Gender Inequities of Self-Efficacy on Task-Specific Computer Applications in Business." Journal of Education for Business, os 81 (2006): 269-273. EBSCOhost. Solano Library. </p>

<p>Frueh, Terry and Paul E. McGhee. “Traditional Sex Role Development and Amount of Time Spent Watching Television.” Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 1, 109, (Jan 1975)
Steven, Goldberg. Why Men Rule--a Theory of Male Dominance. Open Court Company, 1993.<br>
Symonds, William C. "A Breakthrough for MIT -- and Science." Businessweek Oct. 2004. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_40/b3902102_mz018.htm"&gt;http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_40/b3902102_mz018.htm&lt;/a>. </p>

<hr>

<p>don't flame me... this paper was a joke to enrage my fellow female classmates
(Controversial topic essay)
But i think it is a better discussion topic then whether or not chicks dig buff eskimos
and yeah i know its crappy but I wrote it in 2 days ... which is no excuse... tear it apart lol... better I know how much my writing sucks now then when i start college</p>

<p>Gah. Indent, yo. I'd maybe have read it if it weren't a mile long block of text.</p>

<p>Whatever. So what, who cares? Any article that calls people like Marie Curie "outliers" is not socially constructive. I think this kind of discussion is really irrelevant to science. It's very difficult (I'd say impossible) to say that one gender is "better" than the other gender in entire academic fields. Even if that's true...does it matter? Are you going to pass laws based on this? Discriminate based on this? Obviously not. It's just some men beating their chests and trying to prove their superiority, when really they don't even need to do that. I'd rather see a celebration of the numerous illustrious accomplishments of male and female scientists through the ages than a useless argument of "I'm better than you!!!"</p>

<p>I'm not gonna lie. I only skimmed that thing. </p>

<p>Anyway, capable women don't enter science/tech careers at a higher rate for a lot reasons (I honestly don't care enough to write them out). I highly doubt either gender is "better" for them than the other...though it does appear that more males are interested in them given the numbers. </p>

<p>Big whoop. </p>

<p>I'm a girl, and I'm a BME major.</p>

<p>...say something.</p>

<p>You can just say you wrote it for class instead of pretending to have written it "as a joke" to enrage your female classmates.</p>

<p>Honestly, who the hell writes a research paper like that for fun?</p>

<p>The battle of the sexes will always continue.</p>

<p>It's one of many controversial arguments that doesn't seem to have a comprising solution.</p>

<p>Oh it wasn't for fun it was for a class, this isn't really my FULL personal opinion. our english teacher often talks about how guys are better than girls and girls should stay in the kitchen and stuff... so I decided to write this paper on that subject.
And yes I agree, it doesn't really mean anything... So what if on average men have slightly different brains!??? it doesn't mean anything down to the individual level and it doesn't make anyone a better person... in fact I don't think being a housewife is demeaning at all and think it is just as good as being a scientist or whatever. However I also think that Larry sanders or whoever that Harvard guy was got too much unjust flak because his point was somewhat valid.</p>

<p>MallomarCookie :
I never said we are going to pass laws against women because of this, i'm just saying women shouldn't totally blame everything on "male oppression".</p>

<p>I will give an example: I once said that all the great rock guitarists have been male. (TRUE! don't even try to dispute it) And someone says it's because men have always dominated and oppressed women in that field blah blah blah...
well maybe women just have different interests and make ups that make them pursue different things!
Maybe there will never be a female Van Halen, but is it necessarily due to male oppression?? and is it even necessarily a bad thing????</p>

<p>I used this example for 2 reasons: 1. Rock Guitar is an extremely new field, originating sometime during the 60s so you can't say male opression was really that revelant during these times.
2. There is a huge gender gap for no clear reason : How many good guitarists are girls???? come on... not many ... name ONE truly influential guitarist that is female and I will give you ... well nothing...</p>

<p>Numbers don't mean that they're more suited to play a guitar, though. It doesn't really matter how many people do whatever as long as everyone's allowed to do what they want.</p>

<p>Kirk Hammett is amazing (as is the rest of Metallica), by the way, and John Frusciante is love...I only play his music because I only care enough to play his music. </p>

<p>Bass is fun, too.</p>

<p>I am not reading a wall of text. You may accuse me of being wordy but at least I separate my wordiness into managable paragraphs, yikes.</p>

<p>From the comments I'm going to assume that it's about differences in biology/interests/whatever that account for things such as men being better with spacial resoning and 'logic' things and women being better with social and emotional issues. I'm not really sure why that's supposed to enrage feminists?</p>

<p>I'd say there are more great male rock guitarists just because there are more male rock musicians in general...overwhelmingly so, for whatever reason. There are plenty of very good piano-playing female singer-songwriters, though. Maybe it's just the...uhhh...maleness, for lack of a better term, about rock music that deters women in general - all the stuff about partying and groupies and dating models and whatnot. <em>shrugs</em></p>

<p>Also, when looking at the great female rock singers, just about all of them have a deeper and raspier voice. It takes a special voice for a woman to sing good rock, but tons of guys can sing decent rock.</p>

<p>Most females have voices better suited for pop and the such...which is generally why the pop scene is dominated by females.</p>

<p>And we all know male pop singers are gay. ;) I kinda wish there were more female rock singers but oh well.</p>

<p>Do you watch that Rock Star: Supernova show (last year it was Rock Star: INXS)? </p>

<p>There are two women on there that can sing like nothing else.</p>

<p>Oy vey. Stuff like that doesn't enrage me - it's usually said by history-major men to their engineer girlfriends. Also, it's been said, in various forms, since the dawn of time. It used to be thought that women couldn't marathon; that women with any intelligence comparable to that of men were like "three headed gorillas;" and that education would make women infertile. </p>

<p>Yes, the theory of female inferiourity is in constant retreat. :)</p>

<p>Whatever, this debate goes nowhere anyway. Some men are insecure in their masculinity so they try to say how much better their gender is, and the feminists respond by ignoring and spitting on fundamental and very real and natural gender differences.</p>

<p>There's nothing controversial or edgy about that. You can find that type of opinion on anyone of the millions of hardline right wing blogs out there.</p>

<p>You want controversy? Write an essay why New Orleans needed to be destroyed for the good of America. Show some guts dude.</p>

<p>well no the numbers don't say that women are less likely to play rock guitar, i'm just saying that to make a point that men and women excel at different things, why is that so bad? If all the great musical geniuses were men that doesn't mean it was because men "oppressed the women" which is what everyone tries to shove down our male throats. Every time i bring up something about how men and women are different i get that crap.</p>

<p>Okay maybe it's not controversial, but apparently it is where I live because there are too many feminists. </p>

<p>and yeah maybe it did need to be destroyed so we could learn how to better use our resources the next time some(possibly bigger) natural disaster occurs. But How would that be controversial??? No one doubts that New Orleans taught us an important lesson</p>

<p>"You want controversy? Write an essay why New Orleans needed to be destroyed for the good of America. Show some guts dude."</p>

<p>now that would be an essay!</p>

<p>I agree - if you're going to be controversial, at least don't hide behind something that's been said for the last three thousand years. :) Babe, try that originality thing.</p>