Is it possible that we are second best?

devilinside

That is pretty sad and whilst he was a complete baboon there is some truth to our brains being different. This is a pretty basic test but scientifically there is (allegedly) rationale behind our differences. The quiz takes a few moments but is a bit of light fun.

www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

For info I scored 10/10 for the eye/emotion test so higher than most women who took the test.

Apologies, butting in without reading the entire thread, I was informed at 18 by my male driving instructor that women couldn't reverse because of a brain deficiency. Hardly surprising we grow up lacking in confidence then.. Many older women have been subjected to comments such as this (little wonder some of us start to believe them).

Pinkypoops here's a post I just came across relating to that thing about women speaking in meetings:

www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/want-to-get-ahead-in-business-shut-your-mouth-20120607-1zxjy.html

I have yet as an average everyday person found any activity that I can say categorically women are better than men at or vice versa.

I've never read a feminist book either op, doesn't mean I therefore make sexist generalisations.

In practical terms perhaps you could get a computer game where you sing, dance, wave your arms about etc so you can engage more with your dc and dh if they spend a lot of time playing games. It would do them (and you) good to see that women can play computer games too.

No idea if we are second best, but no-one on here can say for sure either AFAIK. All we have seen is anecdotal stuff (either way) and talk about conditioning and reading lists.

Maybe we are oppressed and socially conditioned not to succeed, and are ALSO, generally speaking, not as good at certain things? One thing doesn't necessarily cause the other not to be true.

Another book recommendation Pinky - the Blank Slate by Steven Pinker

Can I jump in and say that I think some of you are being a little harsh on the OP. She has raised a valid point, which, though it may not actually be true, many people believe. And so it is a very valid discussion to have, both to share our views with the OP, and also to help us sharpen our opinions and arguments on the subject for future debate.

Apologies Pinky you did say that we hadn't been personal. I missed that. However, coming out with statements such as "you might say it is down to conditioning blah blah..." is pretty dismissive of an alternative viewpoint (which you had clearly thought about despite protestations to the contrary). It isn't really conducive to building a constructive conversation if you are going to dismiss the alternative debating points with a "whatever" even before the conversation begins. That is more conducive to starting a fight.

And tbh honest most people read a bit in a section or on a forum before jumping in with both feet with a topic likely to upset others.

Anyway Festivia has been a lot more constructive than me, as have others so hopefully you have some food for thought at least.

xkitty - yes, ITA - I've been working for over 25 years in an industry which has more men than women but the teams I've been with have not been too unbalanced. I can't ever remember any bitchiness or people having affairs (there was one pair who became quite a serious couple but they were blokes).

If I listen to DH, who worked for a less pleasant company for many years, there was some extremely nasty behaviour - not mere bitchiness but real bullying and schemeing - from various males.

I'd like to challenge Willowme's assertian about women's behaviour in the workplace. I don't at recognise myself or any of my female colleagues in that description, and I've been working for 18 years. I've known of two people to have an affair - with each other, so 50/50. I've never encountered the so called female bitchiness - somehting I think men are equally guilty of, btw, it just gets called "bitchiness" when women do it but not when men do it.
Most of the people I've worked with have been pleasant and professional, any that haven't haven't really stood out as being one gender or another.

Has anyone read Ursula Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness? Where people have no fixed gender and only have gender identities once a month? It's on my list ... Should be interesting.

Also it's worth looking out for feminist blogs. I read one the other day which posited the idea that if women had been allowed to participate in the building of society and the pursuit of knowledge, we'd be able to talk to the animals by now. It's a bit tongue in cheek, but what the writer was saying, was that maybe women would not have allowed environmentally unfriendly solutions to economic growth - with their input, men and women together might have reached different solutions which wouldn't have resulted in the decimation of species, mass murder, desecration of land and environment. It is no co-incidence that the rise of environmentalism, co-incided with the rise of women's rights. For example, vivisection was first challenged as a necessary and ethical procedure, by women scientists. I can't find that blog now, but here's another one which asks "where were the witches?" which touches on that question, among other stuff.

feministninja.tumblr.com/post/39564998138/patriarchy-killed-my-little-sister

I think book recommendation-wise, I'd recommend Kat Banyard's the Equality Illusion and Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, as you seem to have been exposed to a lot of shite evo-bollocks stuff, which Fine debunks brilliantly and comprehensibly - I know nowt about science but I managed to follow her arguments.

I also think in terms of consciousness, psychology etc., and how living in a hostile misogynist society affects women, Mary Daly is pretty hard to beat. I haven't actually read that much feminist theory at all, just plucking stuff I know.

Just to throw in a counter, I found this very interesting on youtube. I would say that the sentiments voiced by the women are spot on and no different in my industry

also interesting reading

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9444289/Women-in-UK-engineering-jobs-worryingly-low.html#disqus_thread

FWIW a friend and manager at my last company actively recruited female engineers and I think they found that, ironically, although massively under-represented by women engineering is probably one the most open and equal environments you could work in.

It amazes me that men as a collective are responsible for waaaaay more violence than women yet you think it is women that are inferior.

"one thing that seriously gets my goat is placing under-qualified people in positions because of their demographic (grrrr)"

Yes, me too. The Old Boy's Network and nepotism really gets my goat.

you would be writing out the very thing that has shaped maleness and femaleness (sexual reproduction)

Yes, that would be the point. To make the 'male' have to childbear/childrear if the 'male' society was to survive. As I said, defining the 'M/F' characteristics wouldn't be easy without mere stereotyping (which IRL I reject...scientist with a grandfather who was a champion knitter that I am) - but its only a simulation - would in fact stereotypical males actually turn out 'better' than stereotypical females?

I'd like to see your simulation too - and I'm sure there are others that could be dreamed up to explore the dynamics. How about a simulation in which the individuals with otherwise 'male' characteristics were the childbearers and BFers (so had the interrupted careers)

Grimma "....what would happen if someone was to write a simulation with two separate worlds - one 'male' the other 'female' but capable of parthenogenesis. Of course defining m/f 'characteristics' without being merely stereotypical would be difficult but I wouldn't bet that Planet Testostero would be a happier place than Planet Oestro."

Eh? By defining 'male' and 'female' characters but then making them capable of of parthenogenesis you would be writing out the very thing that has shaped maleness and femaleness (sexual reproduction) and instead have to rely on sterotypes to tell your pink/girly characters from your blue/macho characters.

I would like to do the opposite simulation. Two populations living together to all extents and purposes identical but with different reproductive odds - one can have one child a year maximum, the other can have as many children as they are able fertilise (but are unable to reliably identify their own children). Children need 3 years of intensive care for survival and 10 more years of less intensive care.

People were chatting to you at the beginning of the thread Pinky, but you didn't engage with them, choosing instead to cite more examples of how you thought women were just inadequate.

Nobody has got personal on here, Pinky. They have told you that you are wrong. They have asked uncomfortable questions. But no-one has been personal.

The recurring mention of computer games in this particular thread has made me wonder what would happen if someone was to write a simulation with two separate worlds - one 'male' the other 'female' but capable of parthenogenesis. Of course defining m/f 'characteristics' without being merely stereotypical would be difficult but I wouldn't bet that Planet Testostero would be a happier place than Planet Oestro.

Festivia, your last post sums things up brilliantly.

Pinkypops, I know you say you want to learn, want to be convinced. However, I'm honestly not getting the sense that you genuinely want to engage with those who are giving up their time, thoughts and energy to patiently explain alternative perspectives.

Discussions like this crop up frequently here, and in feminist discussion boards all over the web. Sometimes, they are started by people who honestly want to learn, who are willing to listen, who do their own research without expecting people to hand them all the answers on a plate. Much of the time, however, it's not like that. Sometimes they are wind ups. Sometimes, they are started by folks "looking for an excuse to get off the bus," (i.e. saying provocative things in hopes of getting flamed so they can say they were "driven away" from feminism.) I'm not saying that you are either of the last two, but I'm not yet getting the message that you're clearly the first, either. Really, it's up to you though to get that message across.

It's not always possible to be "nice" about systemic oppression, whether that's racism, sexism, homophobia, class prejudice or disability discrimination. It doesn't mean one has to be rude and personalise everything, but it does mean that often you have to say things that WILL make others squirm. If everything is presented in sugar coating, there's a huge risk the whole point will get lost in a bland message of, "well, we should all just be nice to one another and it will be okay." You need the grain of sand to make a pearl. You have to prune a tree to make it grow. If a person isn't receptive to some discomfort, to having their preconceived ideas challenged a bit, to considering alternative perspectives, then they're hardly likely to change their views, no matter how gently you try to persuade them.

So right Annie: that's why I made the point about girls having to achieve higher marks in the old 11+ exam than boys to prevent them outnumbering boys at grammar school. It was patently and obviously unfair to deny entrance to girls because they achieved more but no one gave a flying raspberry at the time because it was only girls being disadvantaged Now there is more coursework and girls are still achieving better marks there is this idea/myth that they are doing better because education has become 'feminised' - whatever that means and lots of hands held up in horror because it is perceived that boys are disadvantaged.

I don't want either sex to be disadvantaged. I don't want positive discrimination (even though males enjoyed positive discrimination in education, jobs, politics etc. right up to recent times). I just want individuals to be judged on their merit - not by their sex.