Can anyone suggest why girls at 6 change their view of girls' ability to be brilliant?

"So how about we fix that first and then see what residual bias is left over?"

Yy.

Biddulph is a major trombone. I threw his stupid book away, it was so terrible, and I LOOOVE books, it pains me to bin them.

And in case it needs saying (which it obviously seems to) when I say no 'right' I'm talking about right under the laws of logic rather rights of freedom of expression which I'm sure you have strong views on especially when it's expression of opinions that disagree with yours.

Datun you seem confused.
I'm not saying you shouldnt question a male perspective. I'm saying you shouldnt suggest a perspective IS male unless the person expressing it is male.
If you disagree with that then I suppose I'm OK to say that anyone who likes 50 shades of grey is showing a female perspective.

xeno

I had to google the Latin, but by God it explains exactly why I get soooo fucked off with that way of arguing.

I instinctively know it's bollocks and respond accordingly but now I have a name for it.

(we already know their opinions about Texas Sharpshooters)

(Hint: they're all for them)

Sorry Datun.

I'm sure the new not male in any way at all will be able to tell you why I can't.

Without ad hominems, because according to them it means you lost the fight, or something. I wonder what they think of post hoc ergo propter hocs? Or a neat little tu quoque?

xeno

I was hoping to hear exactly why you had no right to question a male perspective.

I was looking forward to it.

Jms you seem confused about how MN works. Posters have the right to say whatever they want (as long as it doesn't breech talk guidelines).
It's a place where posters get sniffy about over-use of exclamation marks too so you may want to rethink your punctuation if you want your contributions to be viewed seriously.
I know! Discriminatory against extremes of emotion! Who'll think of the exclamation marks?!!!!

She has the right to say whatever she likes, hope that helps.

Just like you do.

And if you can't work out why someone might suggest that your perspective is male, then I doubt anything I say would educate you.

God knows, I haven't read your posts. That wasn't the question though.

Because what is it about my perspective that makes it male?

Either way she has no right to say so!

Why's that, then?

Datun. What are you on?
You can't have it both ways!
She's either implying I'm male or just that I'm giving a male perspective! Either way she has no right to say so!
She no more knows what a "male perspective" is than anyone knows what a female perspective is!

I don't think she admitted to anything. And it's sex not gender.

Datun- What tosh!
If she's saying I'm giving the 'male perspective ' but admitting I'm not necessarily male, then that implies all men have that perspective! Very patronising and grossly unfair to men and women.!
All of whom may have different perspectives entirely unrelated to gender!

jms

Did xeno call you male? I thought she said your perspective was. Which it is.

Xenophile what makes you think I'm male?

You can google androgens yourself M0stlyhet if you like!

Here are a couple of links:

www.researchgate.net/publication/8106972_Physiological_changes_of_adrenal_androgens_in_childhood

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00028.x

I'm just saying that hormonal stuff happens in boys and girls that might explain some of the differences in their temperaments. None of this is fully understood obviously.

The Atlantic article that Caking posted was quite interesting in that it was illustrative of the adage that women have to work twice as hard as men to be thought of as half as good.

But I digress.

similarly there are far fewer women in physics than men and there are any number of reasons why.

But it is a fact that when viewing identical CV's with either a female name on top or a male name on top, the female CV is rated 10-20% less well qualified for the job.

So lets fix that issue first, and then see if there is still a residual bias in numbers, and then we can whinge about innate differences in male and female brains.

The thing is, that there is both a nature and a nurture aspect, but we can only influence one of those.

So why even bother discussing the nature aspect?

Primary school teachers have been shown to underestimate girls ability in maths wrt boys and overestimate their reading ability WHEN BOTH GROUPS HAVE THE SAME ACTUAL ABILITY.

So how about we fix that first and then see what residual bias is left over?

Citation, please, Caking.

Not testosterone then, but androgens, which kick in around the age of 6.

Anyway to return to the point of the thread: the concepts of 'brilliance' 'talent' and 'ability' are all entirely abstract social constructs. So girls don't have an innate different idea of what constitutes achievement or ability.

What they have is a year of being praised as hard working, while their male counterparts are praised as being clever/smart/talented.

This doesn't do either gender any favours.

Our entire society has a poor concept of achievement that is heavily biased in favour of 'brilliance' and speed of getting to an outcome, over quality of the final outcome.

Better to be fast and wrong than slow, methodical and correct!

Why else do we prevent children from retaking a year of school or even university? Why should it matter if someone has been studying material for longer before they master it?

In many other countries this imbalance doesn't occur and the emphasis is on what level you have achieved, not how fast you got there. These places have better rates of women in STEM.

I see male physics students day in day out, who think they have 'reached the limit of their ability' and are despairing. There is no 'limit', you just keep putting in the time and you steadily improve! But they have never been taught to view learning that way and hence drop out with their hopes shattered.

Yet another reason male suicide in young adulthood is a problem.