
Don't dumb girls down - CarolineW
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/dont-dumb-girls-down-20110829-1jh86.html
======
JonnieCache
To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender
differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly
makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this
idea.

Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain
structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a _massive_ leap to
go from that to asserting that observed differences in behaviour are down to
this rather than down to societal factors.

Separating nature from nurture is notoriously difficult, and in a community
which endlessly holds P=NP to be an open question, it is absolutely
_laughable_ to assume that these biological differences map one to one onto
the observed behavioural differences, when there is such a huge and obvious
confounding factor looming over everything.

We cannot all sit around waiting for six sigmas out of CERN before we can say
we've found the higgs, and then just jump merrily onto simplistic biological
arguments which happen to conveniently favour our social/political/economic
hegemony.

~~~
1gor
> our social/political/economic hegemony.

Hm, sorry, what hegemony are you talking about?

I always wonder why people who go all excited about gender issues can't accept
that women are not men and do not have to be like men? Your 'hegemony' (I
assume you speak the well known thesis about male-dominated society) may not
actually exist, and the 5 year old's desire to look attractive may not be bad
at at all.

Imagine, there are two dimentions to the world. One is manifesting itself in
social power structures, money, status, smart jobs, Nobel awards etc.

The other is completely different and involves sense of belonging, security,
plans about rising children and actual time to spend with children, emotional
connection with friends, caring, feeling etc.

It just could be that most of women are not interested in the masculine
dimension of this life. Heck, I dare say they may not even be particularly fit
for the struggle/rat race due to their biology, exceptions notwithstanding.
But they are powerful masters of another, parallel universe, which is always
here with us, and where majority of men just not quite make it.

I think of many girls/women I've known in life who absolutely hate to spend
their precious time on stupid things like going to work, making sure your last
project is a success, competing, 'achieving' in the eyes of others etc. This
distracts them from their sacred passion in life -- that is to rise a child,
to shape the child's mind and soul and to protect him/her. And protection
means having a secure, clean and comfortable house. And yes, that means having
a strong competitive man next the them who would provide for all of that.
Basically, that means a family.

(The idea of the family seems to have been discredited both by the idiotic
religious right and no less idiotic crusading left, but a strong family has a
clear evolutionary biological advantage. It ensures the partners reproduce and
their children get competitive advantage while growing in a happy/secure
place. On the other hand, a lone over-achiever may as well become the richest
man in the cemetery).

A young girl is conditioned to think about her looks because this will help
her later to chose her mate and to create her family. And yes, she will be
chosen for the large part because of their biological traits (beauty). And
that's not a bit shameful or reproachable.

Thankfully, beauty is not the only criteria, so chill, you gender activists
and spare me the flaming. Of course not only looks matter in life, and child
beauty contests are a horrible thing. But still, it is normal for the girls to
try to look beautiful, just as it is normal for the boys to try to be strong.

~~~
overgryphon
The point of gender issues isn't to say women shouldn't care about beauty,
child care, or or emotional connections. The point is that women can choose to
care about the realms of life you described as "masculine"- jobs, academic
accomplishments, financial independence.

The problem with gender issues reveals itself when the activities and traits
you traditionally classified by gender are enforced on individuals of that
gender. When a young woman's boss passes her over for promotion because she is
around the age many women decide to bear children. When a young man is mocked
and humiliated for doing ballet. When a woman is declared selfish because she
chose her career over staying home with children.

There are women who don't like children, and have no desire to raise one.
There are men who would rather stay home and cook, clean, and raise children
than have a "smart job".

Treating traits as "feminine" and "masculine", which is what happens when
young boys are encouraged to look at cars and young girls are told to be
pretty, sends the societal message to young girls that she cannot have a smart
job, academic achievements and so forth because women don't do those things.

------
ErrantX
I was musing on this the other day (beware; anecdote alert!). I went out for
some drinks with a friend of mine from a long time ago - he is certainly not
the sharpest of individuals, but a laugh and good fun in small doses (even if
a lot of the jokes include farts :S).

For some reason he is also constantly surrounded by very attractive women.
I've seen him out and about before and thought "I'd like to have some of
that!". But my first impression when we were hanging out was that all these
girls shared two things in common - good looks and zero intelligence. Most of
the fart jokes came from them.

Which was a bit of a shock!

It took me a while to figure out that most of them weren't actually thick. I
managed to have a conversation with one of them later on; and found she was a
psychology graduate (one of my favourite pet interests :)), had even published
a research paper on her work. Which was just confusing... there was this smart
good looking girl, and she was hanging around acting thick.

Then I worked it out... they were acting as they were expected to (either by
our perception or theirs) on a night out; shove on the lipstick, revert to
street talk, laugh at fart jokes and play dumb around the men. The
psychologist actually even said this about her career (paraphrasing): "oh..
well I never really tell people that, it puts them off".

Which is just a fucking sad reflection on society.

~~~
petercooper
_Then I worked it out... they were acting as they were expected to (either by
our perception or theirs) on a night out; shove on the lipstick, revert to
street talk, laugh at fart jokes and play dumb around the men._

I'm think, like me, you're British :-) So you probably know that British _men_
generally go out and do exactly the same thing (minus the lipstick). The
average British bloke on a night out is, unless he's on the pull, as dumb as a
rock, generally rat-arsed and talking total bollocks with his mates ;-)

Dumbing down on a night out isn't a gender-based pursuit.

~~~
ErrantX
Yes, you're dead right there... I guess we are all lying to each other.

------
Duff
Great, another whiny article about the poor, maligned girls doomed to a future
of breast enhancement and cellulite cream thanks to misogny.

The article is a troll, here to elicit an emotional response that will sell a
book.

Enter the strawman: "In my book, Think: Straight Talk for Women to Stay Smart
in a Dumbed-Down World, I reveal that 15 to 18 per cent of under-12 girls in
the United States now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly; eating
disorders are up, and self-esteem is down; and 25 per cent of young American
women would rather win America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize.
Even bright, successful, university-educated women say they'd rather be hot
than smart. A Miami mother recently died from cosmetic surgery, leaving behind
two teenagers."

Would the hysterical premise of the article hold true if you substituted
common male gripes or practices? What percentage of boys aspire to be
basketball or baseball players instead of whatever profession is deemed
acceptable? How many young men would rather be football heroes than academics?
How many would rather win a NASCAR race than win the Nobel Prize? Did a Miami
father die of a heart attack because he was playing basketball at 45 in 100
degree heat?

It's easy and convenient to beat up strawmen and find a sexist boogeyman
behind every perceived problem. Just don't lose sight of the fact that when
you do that, you are dumbing things down.

~~~
kamaal
This is worth thinking over.

I think a lot of boys do aspire the adrenaline rush professions. But if they
don't end up being one, do they now resign from their whole lives and just go
saying the social persuasions to be such, destroyed their whole lives?

There is always going to be a social persuasion for nearly everything. They
way we eat, dress, talk nearly anything people can see, people can pass a
comment on. And that becomes a mass opinion and taken to be the established
truth later.

Somehow I find it difficult to understand why women consider themselves so
special in this regard. Why do we end up comparing representation of women and
men in every industry is beyond my understanding.

In the name of diversity and women's empowerment, why should we expect a guy
to work late in the night, come on weekends, push hard deadlines and a girl is
given all options to leave early? why is inefficiency assumed to be OK and
acceptable just to accommodate them? If a girl feels need to emphasize her
equality, can't it be done by performing? Why do rules have to be bent, made
lot more easier?

Its like a foot ball game, where you remove away the defenders so that they
can score a easily. This sort of defeats the very whole purpose of
empowerment.

 _Empowerment is to give strength to something so that it can compete with
challenges as they are, not remove away the challenges so that can be easily
met._

~~~
Tichy
"why should we expect a guy to work late in the night, come on weekends, push
hard deadlines and a girl is given all options to leave early?"

Well, to put it drastically: biologically men are almost worthless. They can
not produce babies. Hence women can make higher demands. Men have to bid for
women (to carry their children) offering as much "worth" as they can. Nobody
has to bid for men, because men are easily replaceable. Especially now that
physical strength is not so important for survival anymore (we have guns).

In many species the female actually eats the male after sex for a nice protein
boost. That is how useful men are.

~~~
cookiecaper
The evidence regarding fatherless homes is definitely on your side.

------
sgentle
This reminds me of a story that I wish I could find again. It was in the
Reader's Digest Young Peoples' Annual from sometime in the 60s. I read it in
the 90s, so some of the advice ("don't go dutch too often") was truly
perplexing, but this particular story was about a girl who played baseball.

She always sat and watched the boys play baseball. One boy in particular
caught her eye. He asked if she wanted to play and she jumped at the chance.
She wanted to impress him, so she pitched the ball hard and fast. With each
player she struck out, he seemed less and less happy. Finally, it came her
turn to bat. By this point, he was hardly paying attention to her at all. She
swung out. "Oops", she said, "I guess I'm not doing it right". His eyes perked
up and he came over to talk to her. "You should hold the bat like this", he
said, "and don't swing so hard". She smiled at him. She could bat just fine,
of course, but it's important to have priorities.

I wish I had a copy because I'd love to read it again. I suspect that the
consequences of treating girls like pretty dolls, rather than the explorers,
creators and leaders that they can be, will be felt for a while still; but I
hope a few decades from now I get to read this article again and laugh at how
things have changed.

~~~
127
Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of
hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance
hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes
misery on the long run for men and for society.

I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had
treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be the
same. Intelligent, critical and capable.

~~~
wgren
>Human biology is not that quick to change.

No, but a lot of things with regards to our current expected behaviour of
genders is in fact social, not biological. A lot of 18th century male
behaviour would today be regarded as effeminate. Red was once the color of
choice for baby boys, and blue for girls.

>Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the
long run for men

Hang on, did anyone propose affirmative action here or something? All the blog
talked about was trying to praise girls for their smarts rather than their
looks. If this is enough to cause misery for you, I think you have self-esteem
issues. (Edit: Oops, that was needlessly confrontational and personal.
Apologies for last sentence.)

>I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had
treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be the
same. Intelligent, critical and capable.

Perhaps, but as mentioned in the article, some girls as young as 5 think they
are "too fat" and try to go on a diet. It is clearly an issue for some.

~~~
kamaal
_Hang on, did anyone propose affirmative action here or something? All the
blog talked about was trying to praise girls for their smarts rather than
their looks. If this is enough to cause misery for you, I think you have self-
esteem issues._

Sorry the blog talked silently about a lot of things, which squarely put the
blame on people for a lot of mistakes which girls make personally.

I appreciate my nephew all the time when he wins a running race or plays
cricket well. But that is never taken as something that can be used to be bad
at academics nor does not speaking about he being good at studies permanently
deter him from being good at studies.

If girls aren't good looking, how does that stop them from picking up a book
and studying hard for an entrance exam. Or burning the midnight oil meeting a
tough deadline? None of that has anything to do with beauty. That's something
which has to come from within. Willingness to work hard and go to tough times
is what brings success and that is irrespective of gender.

Somehow I find it difficult to accept that argument that saying somebody that
they look good suddenly becomes the reason to be never good at anything else
ever after.

~~~
GeneTraylor
It's not about the attribute itself, but affirmation along that attribute.

It's the same conundrum facing parents of gifted kids, praising innate ability
vs. hard work backfires in a spectacular way sooner or later and the child
stops taking risks because they are afraid of being dumb.

------
erikb
I often read such articles from women, but never from men. After looking
deeply at myself and how the world around me acts, I feel that it is really
true: Women ARE evaluated mostly by their looks. Women who look good, wear
good clothes, have a good makeup, will get what they want much more easily
then others. To some degree that is also true for men. It is just how the
world IS. So instead of teaching girls about the value of other things, don't
we do them a favour, teaching them to care about good looks? Does caring about
good looks exclude caring about smartness and education? Is my observation
totally wrong?

~~~
antihero
Let's put it another way - if you teach a girl that her good looks are super
super important, and she's bombarded with adverts telling her ways to improve,
and images of people on TV that are portrayed vastly superior to her
physically, then she is being set up to feel that no matter what she does,
she's never good enough. Whilst us boys can "hit the gym" or "hit the books"
and our manliness and success can exude, a girl has to chase beauty products,
botox, and boob jobs in order to progress with what she's been born with. Or
perhaps become anorexic to be as thin as the models and celebrities that form
the vast majority of what women are told to aspire to.

This is an awful, awful system. Men are valued on something that is in many
respects healthy - physical fitness, ambition, mental progress. Whereas girls
are valued on something superficial and damaging - thinness, "beauty". This is
what the "beauty" industry does - capitalise on this desire like a shark and
not only provide ways for girls to improve their looks, but actively
perpetrate the myth that women need to look younger or slimmer or have 100%
perfect skin. The beauty industry is a fucking disease.

~~~
kamaal
C'mmon.

I am thin, I can't call myself super good looking either. I am not very
extrovert and not too much into sports.

But I can't use this as a reason to be bad at other things. Present ability,
hygiene , looking good, neat and clean matter to both the genders. But if a
person is not very attractive by natural look, that is no reason to _not
perform well in life by personal choice_. That is not a reason, not to work
hard, not to try, not to give your full.

Blaming things apart from oneself only goes so far. And doesn't help anybody.

Just because I sucked at sports, I can't use the same reason to be bad at
programming.

~~~
knowtheory
There is is a _substantial_ difference.

Society's sense of your worth, and as a result your sense of self-worth is not
tied into those physical characteristics.

This isn't a matter of how hard someone tries at life, this is a question on
what basis society judges individuals by (and i should note, this is an
emergent equilibrium. It's nudged this way and that, but now that it's driven
by financial interests, it's hard to shift the equilibrium).

I have a friend who's 6'7". Invariably the first question he was asked when he
met new people was "wow you're tall, do you play basketball?" He hates
basketball. But society's perception of what he'd be good at was tied into his
height. He can't change it, he didn't ask for it, and he certainly showed no
interest or indication that he'd like to discuss basketball.

That's an outside force impinging on his sense of identity. Same goes for
women and what they think society values. Some women play the game, double
down and use it as a zero-sum weapon against other women to get ahead. Some
don't have a choice, or the will, and just get trampled (by the first group of
women).

But again, the difference is that you don't _have_ to play this game. There
are other games you can play, and society will accept you for it. Women don't
get that choice. This is the game that has to be played, if they're to
participate in society.

~~~
kamaal
I am not saying that looking good doesn't matter, sure it does. But it begins
to truly matter only if you want it to.

The world is a tough place. Its difficult out there for the mild hearted. But
that's the case with all the genders. When I was not allowed cricket for my
school team, I didn't take that as male oppression or something that should
dumb me down for ever. Although the common perception at that time was, if you
played well you are more likely to get a girlfriend at that directly cor
related to being _smart_. Its just that I was meant to do something else.
Which I did eventually and did pretty well.

Today I have trouble getting a bride for marriage(here in India these things
matter a lot). But I know deep down within me, I may not be a alpha male among
the pack, not very muscular, smart good looking and physically active. But for
the kind of hard work I put in I will be a lot more richer than the alpha
males.

In fact this happens all the time, The society is sure responsible for these
sort of perceptions. But they become the reality only if we want to.

Now to all girls who reject me to settle with a alpha male, when you discover
a decade later I'm more financially rich. Please don't call that women's
oppression. That just _making wrong decisions and paying for it later._

~~~
knowtheory
> _Now to all girls who reject me to settle with a alpha male, when you
> discover a decade later I'm more financially rich. Please don't call that
> women's oppression. That just making wrong decisions and paying for it
> later._

So, the fact that you found a game you can play and win at, justifies the
mistreatment of people losing at other games? ;)

I appreciate your point, and i agree that people who are strong-willed enough
can break the game, but that still doesn't change the fact that they're
expected to play. The fact that society values different things at different
stages of life doesn't mean that the game that you're good at is any fairer
than the games you were bad at when society valued youth, vitality and ability
to hit and/or catch a ball. All that's different is that you're winning :P

I dig that the internet is all about flying your freak-flag, but there are
still common standards that society expects you to adhere to. When you go
grocery shopping, or when you pass your neighbors on your way to work, or when
you're out with your friends and you've got to deal with the bouncers at a
club, or a bar tender at a pub. All of these places have expected APIs, and if
you behave out of their bounds you have to do on the fly content negotiation,
and some people will be tolerant and accept such negotiations, and other
people are just going to fire back "request denied".

I agree to an extent that we control how much we let that get to us. But there
are a lot of things that go into our mental health and stability. If your
family is also constantly haranguing you about the same shit you get from
everyone else, you have no safe quarter to be yourself (again except maybe the
internets). That's not really a healthy/sane way to live.

I'm not Indian, but the Chinese side of my family totally thinks that my worth
(both as an individual and as a representative of my family) is attached to my
financial stability and whether i've got a "real job" or not. Let me tell you,
i have gotten a lot less flack now that i'm not freelancing. They were also
weirded out that i got married prior to reaching that point of financial
stability. But that in a way is the benefit of being the son of immigrants.
The things that society judges me by are different from the metrics that my
family judges me by. That's something that people like me can play to my
advantage, or for some people, it means that they get the worst of both
worlds, they can't win either in society's perception (and stay true to their
family) or visa versa.

The fundamental question is how optional each of these games are. I don't take
it for granted that they are optional. I think that taking the position that
women have a choice to play the game is a difficult one for me to accept.

~~~
kamaal
_I don't take it for granted that they are optional. I think that taking the
position that women have a choice to play the game is a difficult one for me
to accept._

This is something that even I agree, Here in India a lot of women are helpless
and clearly driven by social pressures. Often under poverty and caste
obligations.

But we are not talking about that section of women here. We are talking of
girls(in the article) who in very clear conscious have the choice to spent
their time, money and resources in a particular way. But don't take the best
way out, and take the wrong choice.

This is utmost bad decision making, not a social problem. Otherwise every
other social persuasion or thought can become your life problem.

------
amalcon
I mostly agree with the sentiment, but this line stuck out at me:

    
    
      25 per cent of young American women would rather win 
      America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize.
    

Only 25%? That's _spectacularly good_ compared to their male counterparts.
What percent of young American men do you think would rather win the Super
Bowl than the Nobel Peace Prize? It's got to be at least half.

~~~
SapphireSun
How many of those women responded to the top model because the Peace Prize is
a heavily politicized prize given to the most expedient person of the hour?
Maybe they should have asked something like "Nobel Prize in Medicine and
Physiology" (not to say that there isn't politics in science prizes, but it's
a lot better than a newly minted President Obama receiving a prize and going,
Um, thanks? What did I do?).

------
Tichy
"Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them
that looks are more important than anything."

Hate to say it, but what if they are? Lots of studies show that pretty people
get further in life.

Not that I mind girls being interested in other things, but perhaps the
ideology should be kept in check.

Even if a girl doesn't care about her looks, other people will, and she has to
learn to deal with it.

~~~
derrida
"Lots of studies show that pretty people get further in life." [citation
needed]

~~~
Tichy
<http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prettier+people+get+further+in+life>

You know, by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really
care for your opinion". If I wasn't so desperate to procrastinate, I should
just ignore you. Why waste energy to educate you if you are obviously not
interested in learning?

~~~
robertskmiles
Are you serious?

> by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care
> for your opinion".

You're saying "I don't care for your random opinion you could have pulled out
of your ass with no correspondence to the real world, please demonstrate that
you didn't just make that up."

When you make a claim that you want to be taken seriously, cite your source.
It's not hard, and it's sure as hell _not anyone else's job_. If you don't
cite a source, people will reasonably assume that you have none, and disregard
what you're saying. That's fine if you don't care, but I repeat, _if you want
to be taken seriously_ , cite your source.

That job is yours and yours alone, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, only you can cite your source because only you actually know what
source you used.

Secondly, from a utilitarian efficiency perspective, if it takes X minutes to
look up and post the source, then the total time spent when you cite your
source is X, but if you don't, and everyone has to look it up themselves, the
total time spent is X*n, where n is the number of people who read your post.
For values of n greater than one, this is dumb. Do the sourcing once, to avoid
duplication of effort.

~~~
Tichy
Also consider this: if PG or Steve Jobs made some claim, would you also reply
with a blunt "citation needed"?

~~~
robertskmiles
If Steve Jobs made some claim about the history of Apple Computer, I wouldn't
ask for a source because he _is_ a source. If he were making a claim about the
correlation between attractiveness and success, then yes I'd ask for a source,
because why should he know anything about that in particular?

But even in that case, he's already a real person I know of, a person who is
known to be pretty intelligent, a person whose motivations I can have a
reasonable guess at, a person who I know needs to be careful about what they
say in public fora. Each of these things put Steve Jobs a little ahead of
'random stranger on the internet' for reliability.

~~~
Tichy
"a person who is known to be pretty intelligent"

That is just the thing. Your default assumption about an unknown person seems
to be that he or she is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile
to say. That might be rational, but I don't think it is very conductive for
human exchange.

Another thing: why should I be interested in convincing you that I have
something worthwhile to say? What is in it for me?

~~~
robertskmiles
> Your default assumption about an unknown person seems to be that he or she
> is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.

My default assumption is that the person is of _average_ intelligence. Jobs is
of substantially above average intelligence, as demonstrated by having founded
and run an extremely successful technology company. That puts him ahead.

> why should I be interested in convincing you that I have something
> worthwhile to say? What is in it for me?

I've addressed this before as well, when I said "if you want to be taken
seriously". If you don't care about the opinions of people who read your
posts, that's fine. If you do care, cite your sources so people can tell that
what you're saying corresponds to reality. Still, if you really aren't
concerned about what people think when they read your comments, why not just
write them in a text file? Why publish things on the net if you don't want
people to think you're saying something worthwhile?

~~~
Tichy
I'd say the notion that providing lots of citations leads to people taking me
more serious needs at least a citation. I don't think it works that way in
general.

It is also not as easy: how does pointing to another random person on the
internet (my citation) make me a more credible random person? Even studies by
actual scientists can be bogus. How am I to know which sources you trust?

Also, I made a claim that was very easy to verify ("there are lots of studies
on topic x"). Should I also provide sources if I claim "the sky is blue"?

------
philjackson
These are good tips, here's how my conversation generally goes with other
people's children:

"Hello, I'm Phil" "Hi, I'm Maya"

Then just stare at one another until another adult speaks.

------
chrischen
"Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them
that looks are more important than anything."

But when you _see_ someone for the first time appearances _are_ the first
thing you notice... unless you can read minds.

Looks are important. Both men _and_ women keep up appearances. Furthermore,
you know how smart you are, and no amount of telling you your appearance is a
great asset is going to make you dumber.

~~~
wgren
>But when you see someone for the first time appearances are the first thing
you notice... unless you can read minds.

Yet when talking to boys, people generally don't say - "Oh, what a handsome
boy you are, and how nicely you dress!" as an opening phrase. We don't sell
these kind of tshirts to boys: [http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/jc-penny-t-
shirt-now-pulled...](http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/jc-penny-t-shirt-now-
pulled-im-too-pretty-to-do-homework.html)

>Looks are important. [...] no amount of telling you your appearance is a
great asset is going to make you dumber.

No, but it tells you what you should spend your time and energy on improving.
Again, something we only do for girls.

~~~
_delirium
> Yet when talking to boys, people generally don't say - "Oh, what a handsome
> boy you are, and how nicely you dress!"

I agree it's not symmetrical, but I _do_ hear this kind of thing directed at
male children pretty frequently, especially in the relatives/family-friends
type setting. "Oh what a handsome young man you have!" isn't uncommon at all.
Though I do tend to associate it with older women, for some reason; at least
as a young lad myself, I think it's a comment I heard mostly from older aunts.

~~~
overgryphon
Boys generally only hear that sort of statement from family members at family
gatherings.

Young girls hear how pretty their dress or hair or smile is from just about
anyone upon introduction. They are put into ballet classes where they learn to
act pretty, into girl scouts where they do traditional arts and crafts rather
than the camping and leadership that boy scouts focuses on, and are given play
makeup until around ten or so when they are encouraged to learn how to put
real makeup on. Many young girls know what dieting is, and start doing so in
intermediate school- before they have even stopped growing. Young girls are
supposed to behave appropriately as such, while loud, rude, and overly
rambunctious behavior from boys are tolerated as "boys will be boys". All of
this is anecdotal from my own experiences, but I believe to be true in many
areas of the US.

The extent to which young girls are raised to be pretty is on a completely
different level of young boys.

~~~
chrischen
It is at a different level, but only because it's simply more practical in
society for a girl to be pretty than it is for a boy.

You'd have to make everyone ignore beauty to disincentivize being pretty for
girls and that is going to be pretty impossible.

As more girls start to realize their independence from men (because of
education now opened up fully for women) the emphasis on beauty will naturally
start eroding away as they realize they can do other things to support
themselves and get what they want in life.

------
kamaal
This article is talking only about one part of the story, while it can't be
denied that people demand girls to look good. At the same time, girls
themselves get into peer pressure easily. Very quickly in their lives they get
the feeling that in order to be 'looked at' you have to be beautiful. I am not
saying that guys don't suffer from this, but girls suffer from this more than
guys.

Its like the TV channels competing for TRP's. The demand for a something good
exists, but the fact is that the demand is fueled by the content providers and
not viewers.

Now on a larger scale, the society doesn't dumb down girls. Its just the mere
biological reasons prevent them from doing so many jobs that are common for
men. Women have higher social pressures, physically and biologically they have
more limitations when compared to men. They have bigger social pressures to
deal with. All in all, this counts for most of the reasons why women don't get
the _incremental learning_ at the same rate as men.

Now come to look at the other part of it, there is huge difference between
looking good/presentable and wild chase for beauty. Cosmetic products exist
both for men and women, but their nature differ. Apart from your usual set of
deodorants and usual kit et al, you don't mascara or lipstick for men. Not
that such a thing is not desirable for men, but its just that men won't chase
it at all.

Ultimately you truly get what you want.

~~~
paradoja

        Not that such a thing is not desirable for men, but its just that men won't chase it at all.
    

Give it time for marketing departments to do their jobs...

~~~
raghava
>> Give it time for marketing departments to do their jobs...

Absolutely. They are working overtime on this one. Recently, India has seen a
sudden surge in cosmetics for men.
[http://www.google.co.in/search?q=male+cosmetics+india+filety...](http://www.google.co.in/search?q=male+cosmetics+india+filetype:pdf)

------
jwingy
As a guy, and a geek, I definitely find intelligence highly attractive (and I
think most of you would agree with me). Since geeks will eventually inherit
the earth, wouldn't it be advantageous to start teaching our women how they
can get ahead on this curve by flaunting their intelligence? :)

~~~
derrida
As a guy, this type of thinking once again puts the value on women as
'attractiveness'. Why isn't intelligence good for its own sake?

~~~
jwingy
I never said intelligence wasn't good for its own sake, nor was I trying to
imply a woman's worth is only in her level of attractiveness. Certainly in a
ideal world we would all aspire to goals without concern for outside opinion,
but alas we don't live in a vacuum.

------
anujkk
Whenever I think about "beauty" this poem automatically comes to my mind -

Beautiful faces are those that wear–

It matters little if dark or fair–

Whole-souled honesty printed there.

Beautiful eyes are those that show,

Like crystal panes where hearth-fires glow,

Beautiful thoughts that burn below.

Beautiful lips are those whose words

Leap from the heart like songs of birds,

Yet whose utterance prudence girds.

Beautiful hands are those that do

Work that is earnest and brave and true,

Moment by moment the long day through.

Beautiful feet are those that go

On kindly ministries to and fro,

Down lowliest ways if God wills it so.

Beautiful shoulders are those that bear

Ceaseless burdens of homely care,

With patient grace and daily prayer.

Beautiful twilight at set of sun,

Beautiful goal with race well won,

Beautiful rest with work well done.

Beautiful graves where grasses creep,

Where brown leaves fall, where drifts lie deep,

Over worn-out hands! Ah, beautiful sleep.

–Ellen P. Allerton

------
jacques_chester
A lovely pot-pourri of anecdotes and hand-picked exceptional examples.

~~~
wgren
It's a blog post, not a research paper. If course it will use anecdotes. Do
you have any counter examples to show an exceptional bias in their "hand-
picking"?

------
Tashtego
Man she's been shopping that column around for a while.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/how-to-talk-to-
litt...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/how-to-talk-to-little-
gir_b_882510.html?ref=fb&src=sp)

------
cafard
This same item, but from an American publication, was posted to HN a couple of
months ago. Reheated, it still does not impress.

------
orochimaru
Of course people irrespective of their gender should be able to do what they
want to, but hailing a genetic gift of smartness over a genetic gift of
beauty, or vice-versa doesn't make sense. It's how evolution has worked up
until now - it's pretty much a beauty pageant.

Trying to change a process that has evolved us into what we are is going to
take time. Of course not all aspects of evolution are perfect, but this -
favouring beauty over ugliness/fatness is pretty darn effective.

Without competition, we would all be slobs - no scratch that - unicellular
organisms.

So, in conslusion - we are who we are - whether you want to fight and change
that is your wish, but don't go preaching to others about what we should or
should not do. I'm going to go tell all the little girls around me how cute
they are. Maybe not at the same time though, lest I get mistaken for a
paedophile. :P

~~~
lutorm
I don't know what your point is. Nowhere is the author making the point that
you should hail any genetic gifts. And nowhere is she arguing that good looks
are not beneficial.

Moreover, if you want to make Darwinian arguments, one could equally well say
that without competition we'd all be as stupid as amoebas. I don't see where
you get support for appearance being more favored than intelligence.

Furthermore, why do you focus on either of these attributes being genetic at
all? If we assume that they are, then it shouldn't matter whether we encourage
people to care about _either_ their intelligence or appearance. But clearly
there is a huge amount of nurture in both aspects, so the genetic aspect is
just a red herring.

The real question is whether encouraging girls to focus on appearance over
anything else is helpful or healthy.

------
Goladus
_Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them
that looks are more important than anything._

Appearance is almost always the first thing you notice about someone. I'm not
sure pretending otherwise is especially practical or will really help much in
the long run.

~~~
samlevine
This applies to guys as well as girls. My parents made sure that I learned
that people judge me on how I look, smell, speak, etc.

------
sgns
Thanks, that was interesting. Not least the comments, including one from "Too
Smart", which said: "Being dumb is much better than having to play dumb. It
does no good for a girl to be too smart," and suggested complimenting the girl
for her sweet looks.

Sort of trollish? Maybe, but it also is true that 'good looks' _show_ , and
have immediate 'consequences', whereas the intelligence that's innate to us
doesn't show, and the real challenge of intelligence maybe is to find a way to
do something with it. Something that makes life meaningful. Which takes
constant work, self-confidence, and daring.

------
WalterBright
Parents with one kid believe it's nurture, parents with 2 or more know it's
nature.

------
ctek
The desire to be attractive is hard-wired into female biology. Fundamentally,
we exist to survive and reproduce. Millions of years of evolution have evolved
visual cues that signal health - especially reproductive health in both men
and women however women's interest in successfully advertising their
reproductive health is absolutely essential to what they have evolved over
millions of years to do - which is bear children.

High intelligence is not necessary to survive and reproduce successfully even
in today's world which explains why most women (and probably most - but less
men) would rather be "hot" than "smart". In general, during the reproductive
phase of their lives (and long after that as well), women focus advertising
their reproductive health, and men - their status.

High intelligence however is key to acquiring status - which is much more
important for men than for women which in my mind explains why more men than
women are interested in being smart.

~~~
Jem
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that looking attractive for
women is basically a biological imperative? The problem, as I see it, is that
the evolved visual cues signalling good reproductive health are not in the
slightest bit similar to what the media purport to be attractive today.

Look for example at Neolithic figurines... women with large bellies, ample
bosoms, wide hips. That's not what's plastered all over magazines and TV.

~~~
127
I'm thinking that the fertility symbols where the woman is fit and thin far
outnumber the ones where the woman is visibly obese. Wide hips, large bosom,
healthy layer of fat, most certainly. But obesity? Rare. India, Egypt, Rome.
All those sculptures look to be in the confines of healthy weight. I doubt
that people living in that age had access to TV or magazines. Looks to me like
you're quite obviously cherry-picking.

~~~
Jem
Not deliberately cherry picking, simply picking a time before great royal
families and extravagant emperors had an impact on fashions and culture. Don't
get me wrong, I'm no expert on this (just a passing interest) so happy to be
informed otherwise.

Side note: there's an interesting theory in Ann Sinnott's Breastfeeding Older
Children about fertility / female symbols and their relation to patriarchy and
our 'progress' from nomadic hunter gatherers. The theory goes that as we
settled down into working the land / raising animals, where women were
obviously needed more, they became less valued for child birth / child rearing
and consequently these fertility symbols not only got slimmer, but started to
be replaced by a greater quantity of male / phallic symbology.

Only vaguely related to the topic at hand but hugely interesting (to me,
anyway!)

------
chubs
What a beautiful story of her interaction with that little girl. I hope i'm
like that with my daughter when she's that age :)

~~~
pjscott
That's also a good way to interact with little boys, incidentally. It makes
you a _much_ more interesting adult than someone who just says and does the
same boring things as every other adult who is suddenly faced with a child.

------
dimmuborgir
If beauty consciousness in girls can be said as peer pressure then geek/nerd
consciousness in boys can be said as peer pressure as well. Boys who don't
play videogames or watch sci-fi/action movies or listen to some complex
rock/electronic music genre or those who are not gadget freaks or those who're
not into science/technology/engineering in general are seen as less masculine
(at least in a first world society).

I think the reason why femininity is looked down is the economic models of the
last 150 years which have favored science over art, rationality over
irrationality and utility over authenticity. I think the world needs a second
romantic era to truly appreciate the feminine aspects of
beauty/creativity/genuineness.

------
mrpsbrk
Compare with <http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771.full> another post
at HN at around the same time, about the importance of stupidity in science.
Two very different conceptions of dumb.

I would also like to stress that it is not really about looks, only, but about
being always "in character" for the woman, which is pretty and dumb, true, but
would be much better described as "good marrying material".

Finally, please, anyone who cared about this, check out "Ada Lovelace Day", to
happen this year a month from today. <http://findingada.com/about/>

------
nazgulnarsil
I was under the impression that female educational attainment was WAY up and
continuing to increase. Oh I'm sorry, is this article only about correlations
that are convenient for your premise?

------
kolektiv
I loved this. I couldn't agree more. I don't really have any great salient
points or anecdotes to add but I would love to live in a world where more
people think this way. As a thought experiment though, what would it take to
change this? Could this be published advice to parents? Parenting classes,
post-natal something? I don't know. Prescriptive stuff is clearly not going to
be popular, but in the spirit of the article - if you had a magic wand, what
would you do to spread this thinking?

------
hermannj314
"be the change you want to see in the world"

The author is fighting an uphill battle on this one, but I appreciate her
ideal. Never underestimate the power your words have on shaping a child's
life.

------
wallflower
I quote a HN comment from HilbertSpace in its entirety:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2111651>

> "Way before age 5, the little girls realize that they are small versions of
> Mommy and NOT Daddy. They know in absolute terms that they are a GIRL and
> NOT a BOY.

Since their mommy was happy being a mommy, the little girls want to be like
Mommy and on the 'mommy track'.

By about age 18 months, little girls are already masters at eliciting positive
emotions from adults, MUCH better than boys. The girls are also MUCH better at
reading emotions than boys. Facial expressions and eye contact are part of how
the girls read and elicit emotions; other ways are to 'act' (they are MUCH
better at acting than the boys) cute, meek, and sweet and to be pretty. Since
being pretty lets them do better eliciting positive emotions, they love pretty
dresses with ruffles and ribbons. So, they are in a 'virtuous circle': They
act sweet, elicit positive emotions in an adult, e.g., father, grandfather,
uncle, get a gift of a pretty dress, wear the dress, elicit even more positive
emotions, get even more pretty dresses, white bedroom furniture, patent
leather shoes, cute stuffed animals, etc.

Having to act like a boy or be treated like a boy, instead of like a girl,
would be terrifying to them.

So, in their first years, such little girls, to be on the 'mommy track' want
to play with dolls and not Erector sets, want to work at being pretty and not
how to hot rod a car, want to learn how to bake a cake and not how to plug
together a SATA RAID array.

Give such a girl a toy truck and she will know instantly that the toy is 'for
boys' and will avoid it as a big threat.

Generally, from a little after birth and for nearly all their lives, human
females are MUCH more emotional than human males. So, they pay a LOT of
attention to emotions, both theirs and others'.

One of a human female's strongest emotions is to get security from membership
in, and praise, acceptance, and approval from, groups, especially groups of
females about their own age. That is, they are 'herd animals'. Gossip? It's
how they make connections with others in the herd. Why do they like cell
phones so much? For more gossip. Why pay so much attention to fashion? To 'fit
in' with the herd.

In such a herd, in most respects the females try hard to be like the 'average'
of the herd and not to stand out or look different. [An exception is when a
female wants to lead her herd, e.g., go to Clicker, follow the biographies,
get the one for the Astors, and look at Ms. Astor and her herd of 400.] Well,
as long as human females with good parenting are on the 'mommy track', and the
human race will be nearly dead otherwise, the 'average' of the herd will
emphasize the 'mommy track', dolls, looking pretty, cakes, and clothes and not
Erector sets, hot rodding cars, or building RAID arrays.

When it comes to a college major, any human female 18 months or older will
recognize in a milli, micro, nano second that her herd believes that
mathematics, physical science, engineering, and computer science are subjects
for boys and NOT girls. Instead the girl subjects are English literature,
French, music, acting, 'communications', sociology, psychology, nursing, maybe
accounting, and K-12 education. By college the girls have been working 24 x 7
for about 16 years to fit in with the herd of girls, and their chances of
leaving the herd in college to major in computer science are slim to none.

Don't expect this situation to change easily or soon: Mother Nature was there
LONG before computer science, and, as we know, "It's not nice to try to fool
Mother Nature.". Or, to get girls to major in computer science, "You are
dealing with forces you cannot possibly understand.". Having women pursuing
computer careers give girls in middle school lectures on computer careers will
stick like water on a duck's back -- not a chance. Nearly all the girls will
just conclude that at most such careers are for girls who are not doing well
fitting into the herd of girls, are not very good socially, don't get invited
to the more desirable parties, don't get the good dates, are not very pretty,
and are not in line to be good as wives and mommies. By middle school, the
girls have already received oceans of influences about 'female roles', and
changing the directions these girls have selected and pursued so strongly for
so long is hopeless..."

~~~
kamaal
From your post I get a feeling that the average girl is happy being what she
is now. Then I fail to understand whats the need for posts in this thread's
original link.And what is the complain all about? Looks like the girlish
definition of 'dumb' is a lot more different than ours. If being good looking
and beautiful is what makes them feel successful, then _why isn't that goal
worth chasing_.

I do know when we talk of women in the military, or ones burning midnight oil
in some software company chasing a tough deadline we talking of exceptions and
outliers. Not all women want to be that, not all want physically stressful
jobs which demand a lot of endurance. Not all want emotionally demanding jobs.
Not all want to be in a place where working midnights and weekends is
inevitable. Vast majority of them are just happy with current roles.

If so why should the whole majority of womenfolk change just for a few
outliers?

~~~
sgns
I suspect that a) the vast majority of womenfolk simply don't exist - that
some are outliers doesn't mean that the majority are alike, because give it
what you like, b) social conditions are changing, for both men and women there
are very contradictory expectations - so it may very well be that there is no
way to be (culturally) satisfied, and thus c) the vast majority isn't happy.
Add to that d), even if we are all up to making choices where we are truly
existentially alone, many will for a big part of their life choose as their
environment does, because choosing what you want is scary, and doing as others
do gives - cold - comfort.

I think there are big changes coming up everywhere.

There are so many games one can play, which at least give a thrill, but that
doesn't mean it's satisfying for life. It's like junk food. I suppose that's
what much marketing does.

Society is not an intentional result - it's the unintentional result of
sometimes (mostly not) intentional actions. Most of the time our bodies are on
auto-pilot.

~~~
neutronicus
I dated a nursing student in college, so I ran in that social circle a bit,
and I knew a _lot_ of girls who made no bones at all about wanting marriage
(with an appropriately expensive wedding), children, and an end to the
professional life as soon as absolutely feasible.

------
grammaton
Ah, the comments section of just about any article on the internet, always a
goldmine of inadvertent comedy. My personal favorite from this one, right at
the top:

"What's wrong with wanting to be hot rather than smart? Not everyone can be
intelligent, and both beauty and intelligence are natural, requiring no work."

Priceless!

------
tintin
This great article shouldn't be surrounded by those stupid banners dumbing
down women.

------
rhygar
The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Have any of you
ever actually _talked_ to a woman? I'll boil down the argument into one that
favors women:

Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no
surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men. After all, it's
their biology. And thus all men should be regarded as likely violent in the
right circumstances. Also we should not trust men to care for small children,
because they have no idea what they are doing since they lack the biological
drive for child-rearing.

~~~
orangecat
_The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering._

Suggesting that biological factors result in statistical differences between
men and women is not misogyny. "Different" does not mean better or worse.

 _Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no
surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men._

Essentially true. "Biologically programmed" is a bit strong, but in a sexism-
free utopia would you seriously expect 50% of violent criminals to be women?

 _Also we should not trust men to care for small children, because they have
no idea what they are doing since they lack the biological drive for child-
rearing._

Strawman. Nobody is saying that women should be discouraged from or can't
excel in any area. It's just that if individual choices result in more male
than female tech startup founders, and more female than male preschool
workers, it may not be due to the all-powerful patriarchy.

~~~
rhygar
I find it amusing that you took a parody of the group-think displayed here as
a serious argument.

------
saturn
None of this advice applies to me, of course. As a man and therefore a child
molesting rapist just waiting for my chance to strike, the idea that I could
have any sort of conversation with a little girl - let alone sit down on a
couch and talk privately - is simply laughable.

~~~
hack_edu
There ought to be a Godwin's Law about threads talking about gender on the
Internet. Given a certain concentration of comments on the subject, a
sarcastic and baseless complaint of the assumption of male guilt (especially
absurb, off topic comments about rape!) must appear.

~~~
burgerbrain
Well, is he wrong? I know _I_ make an active effort to avoid children...

------
georgieporgie
This is kind of weird and forced. _All_ social interactions start in a
superficial way. Kids don't show up in their own cars ("hey, is that the new
Brotus Fundero?"). They don't (usually) wear t-shirts from their last trade
show or vacation. They aren't toting new laptops in unique courier bags and
holding exotic drinks.

You're basically stuck complementing their dress, hat, or whatever. That's how
social interaction works, regardless of gender. You can move on to TV shows,
books, and political affiliation later, but you need an opener.

------
NY_Entrepreneur
Folks, this thread has a lot of confused thinking that is dangerous; we need
the thinking in this thread to be more clear.

First reality check. There is an old remark about research in psychology, that
all the results either (1) are solid science that, however, say next to
nothing important about humans or (2) say something important about humans,
however, are junk as science.

Similarly, for the main issue here, that is, for what is necessary in sex
differences, for the role of nature versus nurture, etc., the results from
solid science won't be very important and the very important results won't be
solid science. Net, to address the issue scientifically, so far we are STUCKO.
Sorry 'bout that.

Second reality check. On the issue of the OP, that is, how to treat girls,
young women, and women, each person WILL necessarily take some position. That
is, no one gets to decline to choose an answer. We MUST have an answer. We do
not have the luxury of no answer, and, from the first reality check, the
answer we take on the important parts of the issue will not be from solid
science. Sorry 'bout that.

Solid science is great stuff. However, quite generally in life, we have to
make decisions without solid science. Sorry 'bout that.

Third reality check. I can assure you that it is actually fairly easy to get
things very wrong in treatment of females, and the consequences can be from
awful down to fatal. I exaggerate not. I can use Google Earth to give you the
coordinates of the tombstone. So, the issue here is SERIOUS.

There is a moral issue: Men don't want to be unfair or cruel to the females.
So, here's a practical resolution: Give the girls plenty of opportunity. Give
them dolls and also erector sets, white bedroom furniture and also a
basketball goal, tell them they are cute, sweet, pretty, darling, adorable,
and precious and also explain TCP/IP, DNS, and POP 3, encourage them in both
English literature and physics, in both art history and solid geometry, have
them help you make chicken salad and also put the snow tires on the car, mop
the kitchen floor and also sweep out the garage.

Some people who have tried this practical resolution came to a conclusion: The
little girls quickly, strongly moved toward the stereotype for cute, sweet
little girls. They played with the dolls and ignored the erector set; they
liked art history much more than solid geometry; they were eager enough to mop
the kitchen floor but wanted nothing to do with the garage. They were much
more eager to be a cooperative member of a group than to strike out on some
curiosity driven, independent, creative investigation.

Important information about the girls? Yes. Solid science? No. Did I mention
that quite generally in life, we have to make decisions without solid science?

But more is possible: If parents and society push and shove, keep telling the
girls to 'perform' well at 'boy activities', then, girls, being eager to
please and more obedient, often will. If push them to be independent,
autonomous, assertive, self-sufficient, and equal and to resent dependency,
passivity, membership, partnership, subservience, etc., then through, say,
college, they will. My experience is that, then, too likely (granted, not
always) you will find that you have created a VERY 'mixed up' young woman and
a weak, sick, or dead limb on the tree and conclude that Mother Nature
considered all such issues long before you did and that it's not nice to try
to fool Mother Nature.

Here's an easier approach: If only from an 'asymptotic' consideration, place
value on her being a strong limb in the tree. Do a really good job taking care
of her until can help her find a really good husband, and then help her
husband continue to take very good care of her and her children. Have her be
good as a wife and mother in a secure, strong family. This thought, perhaps
now with feminism really offensive, is not original with me. Instead, in the
"Foreword" to

Maggie Scarf, 'Intimate Partners: Patterns in Love and Marriage', Random
House, New York, ISBN 0-394-5585-X, 1987.

Dr. Carol Nadelson, past president of the American Psychiatric Association,
wrote:

"Traditional marriage is about offspring, security, and caretaking."

If want her to be quite active between her ears and especially busy and
productive, then emphasize to her and help her in how much there is to know
about helping her children with their emotional, rational, psychological,
social, artistic, physical, practical, verbal, quantitative, manual,
scientific, technological, and creative problem solving development and
understanding of history, business, the economy, people, groups, society,
politics, etc., how far and away the most important influence on them, for
their academic performance and nearly everything else, is the nurturing they
get at home, and how important it is to build and have a secure, strong family
and how she can play a central role there. Indeed, she might just take on
doing a good job home schooling her children through, say, the International
Baccalaureate program, high SAT scores, etc. Let the children get through the
Beethoven piano sonatas and the Bach unaccompanied violin pieces, Rudin's
'Principles of Mathematical Analysis', Royden's 'Real Analysis', Breiman's
'Probability', and the 'Feynman Lectures on Physics' -- should keep them busy
for a while!

What do you want? Lots of really healthy grandchildren or someone to sweep out
the garage?

