

Stereotyping women right out of science - tokenadult
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/stereotyping_women_right_out_o.php

======
acangiano
I respect PZ Myers as a scientist and as an atheist, but when it comes to
gender equality, he really comes across as pushing feminist propaganda (circa
1985).

Case in point, in a previous article he casually dismissed the whole Men's
Rights movement, claiming that rape is commonly advocated by its activists.
This is absolutely inane and inaccurate.

The feminist movement was born out of the desire to bring equality to both
genders and to remove inequalities that affected many women. Over the years, a
vocal fringe managed to go far beyond that noble intent, and started
advocating hatred towards men. Guess what, they are a just a fringe. They
don't invalidate the positive achievements of the movement.

The Men's Rights movement was born with a similar intent, to attempt to fix
existing inequalities that affect many men today. In this movement, just like
feminism, there are people who go too far, and instead of advocating equality,
advocate hatred towards women.

Among feminists you will find a higher percentage of women with a bias against
men. Among men's rights activists, you will find a higher percentage of men
with a bias against women. And regardless of the movement, there will always
be people who go too far.

The truth of the matter is that people have a hard time accepting the fact
that males need a support/advocacy group too. Many people in today's society
assume that being white, heterosexual, and male equates to not having any of
your rights violated. This too is far from the truth. There are serious
injustices and double standards that affect and destroy the lives of many men.
Their rights should be defended just as much as those of women. And both
efforts should be considered honorable and not shameful.

Men and women are different, we can't expect both sexes to be equal in every
single regard. However, we can - and should - expect both sexes to have the
same rights under the law. And there is nothing wrong with advocating that.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not part of the feminist or the Men's Rights movement; I
simply consider myself in favor of equal rights. I support the right of both
groups to exist, while not agreeing 100% with either of them.

</rant>

~~~
steveklabnik
Don't movements tend to be defined by their fringe elements, though? At least
in public perception?

    
    
      All animal rights activists are like PETA.
      All anarchists throw bombs.
      All Republicans are Tea Partiers.
      All Christians are fundamentalists.
    
    

Not that it's right to do so. But it seems to happen all the time.

~~~
acangiano
Correct, but I don't think it's far-fetched to expect a slightly higher
standard from a science professor such as PZ Myers.

------
tsally
This piece reads like a women's rights article from 10 or 15 years ago. We've
moved on from this basic debate between thinking and feeling. To be honest I'm
pleased that most discourse today is at a higher level. I appreciate the
author's position, but "women feel, while men think" is essentially a solved
debate as far as gender issues go. I don't think even the most idiotic
misogynist resorts to that argument anymore (I might be underestimating the
idiots). There are so many more opportunities for deep conversation on this
issue, so it pains me to see the author take this approach!

As an aside, I'll point out any battle for women in science was lost long
before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts.
The issue is about the women who didn't make it to med school in the first
place.

~~~
araneae

      "Women feel, while men think" is essentially
      a solved debate as far as gender issues go.
    

Really? Because this is, on average, _true_. Whether or not it's biological or
cultural is another argument, but I think that is also up for debate. The fact
is that Meyer-Briggs test show that women are much more likely to be "Feeling"
over "Thinking" on that axis of the test.

Now, you can debate all you want over the validity of these personality tests,
but when women are asked how they react to situations, they tend choose to
select the "feeling" axis. Perhaps that's not actually what they think, and
they're just trying to conform to female stereotypes, but I really don't think
it's resolved at all.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Myers-Briggs scores people on several dimensions. They chose to label one of
those dimensions "thinking-feeling". But that doesn't mean that the test is
actually discriminating between "thinking" and "feeling" as we commonly
understand those words. You could just as easily label the "thinking-feeling"
axis as "detached-involved" -- but then it would obviously be irrelevant to
the claim that "women feel, while men think".

This is one of those cases where details matter: psychometrics are not simple.

~~~
mattmillr
To further illustrate how you can't just throw these labels around, Myers-
Briggs has "iNtuiting" on another axis. PZ Meyers makes references that place
"Intuition" in opposition to science (thinking.) If the words mean the same in
both contexts, then the Myers-Briggs temperament of the NT/Rational who is
both iNtuitive and Thinking becomes, well, awkward at best.

~~~
araneae
Obviously the set of questions they ask relating to "thinking" versus
"feeling" do not have a 1-to-1 relationship with those characteristics. But
it's not bad: [http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-
bas...](http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-
basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp)

To address intuition, INTPs- where N stands for intuition- are actually the
"scientist" types. However, like you note, the combination is comparatively
rare. "Intuition" for MBTI talks about how you perceive incoming information.
[http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-
bas...](http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-
basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp) But you're right, the definition of
"intuition" in MBTI is... unintuitive.

------
pmccool
Margaret Wertheim's book "Pythagoras's Trousers" discusses this issue. The
contention there is that it's not just about this sterotype, it's also about a
deeply entrenched anti-female culture.

The gender bias problem can't be fixed simply by reversing this stereotype; it
goes much deeper than that. It's not whether women can do it or not; it's
blindingly obvious that they can. It's that significant numbers of them are
put off by the culture and either cut their careers short or don't start one
at all.

------
nerfhammer
"One of the most cunning tools of the patriarchy is the assignment of woo as a
feminine virtue."

Kind of sad that he has to use a pseudoscientific theory of mind to make his
point.

------
looprecur
This is a serious problem, even today, but the article seems to fail at
addressing it.

1\. The "nurturing" sort of work isn't inferior to the analytical style of
work. Both are important. Raising children is one of the most important things
we do, and God knows a lot of people aren't doing a very good job of it.

2\. The erroneous assumption that men are always better-suited to analytical
work and women are nurturers _is_ problematic and ridiculous. It screws people
both ways. Male nurses are considered effeminate, while women who excel
analytically are underestimated.

3\. Combating sexism in academia, research and medicine is a noble goal, but I
don't see solutions being put forward here.

