Book discussion Womans Hour Wed 15 July (maths alert too)

[TeenPlusTwenties]

The book 'x+y: A Mathematician's Manifesto for Rethinking Gender' was discussed today on Woman's Hour at about 10:37

Mathematicians Manifesto Rethinking Gender

This is the blurb:

From imaginary numbers to the fourth dimension and beyond, mathematics has always been about imagining impossible things. In x+y, Eugenia Cheng draws on the insights of higher-dimensional mathematics to reveal a transformative new way of talking about the patriarchy, mansplaining and sexism: a way that empowers all of us to make the world a better place.

Using precise mathematical reasoning to uncover everything from the sexist assumptions that make society a harder place for women to live to the limitations of science and statistics in helping us understand the link between gender and society, Cheng's analysis replaces confusion with clarity, brings original thinking to well worn arguments - and provides a radical, illuminating and liberating new way of thinking about the world and women's place in it.

Well I might get round to reading it. But mathematicians are just as vulnerable to convoluted magical thinking as anyone else, possibly more so as the result of their discipline.
One of my senior lecturers, a highly respected mathematician, was also an astrologist. He used to cast horoscopes for his tutees. I won’t hold my breath.

astrologer aargh

She seemed quite articulate from the discussion, and definitely 'gender critical'. I didn't hear any magical thinking.

Sounds interesting. There's such a difference between imagination and magical thinking.

She seemed quite articulate from the discussion, and definitely 'gender critical'.

I'm not so sure:

twitter.com/am_i_tom/status/918875841823756288

However, this might just be that it would be career suicide for her not to use activist-approved terminology.

Not sure she was gender critical - she mentioned men, women and non binary people in her intro...

I cannot recall hearing a single female science academic speak about the gender identity ideology with anything other than compliance. I assume gender critical female science academics exist but they know better than to caught in the media admitting to it.

@Iamanaubergine

Not sure she was gender critical - she mentioned men, women and non binary people in her intro...

Yes, my heart sank when she mentioned non-binary, I have a hard time respecting that stance.

I only heard the introduction - she was making observations around gender that seemed to me to be feminism 101 but acting as if it was some amazing new idea

Having said that I didn't hear the part where the ideas in her book were discussed so she may very well have had interesting things to say when it comes to maths...and that is a subject I know very little about!

Here’s an interview with her
www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/54189

“What if character traits such as competitive, aggressive, cooperative and nurturing were separated from the gender that we usually associate with each? Would this help us make school maths appeal to all, regardless of gender?”

I’m not sure there’s any great insight there (girls might enjoy maths more if you did group work sort of thing, but let’s call it ‘people who like group work’ instead of ‘girls’)

Using higher maths to talk about the patriarchy seems to be something different though?

I only half heard it.
The bits I heard seemed sensible e.g. shouldn't assigned traits as masculine or feminine and instead decide if they are helpful or not helpful.

The bits I heard left me with the impression that when she talks about this subject it's on the basis of the gendersex concept.

On the face of it this seems like it could be interesting. But there is a tendency sometimes for people in sciences and math to imagine that they are having new, sophisticate insights into humanities topics that need to be shared, so as to bring all those poor humanities people along, you know. When really they are just Richard Dawkins and don't know what epistemology is.

The other thing I find with math people is sometimes they can get caught up into using mathematical ideas to try and show things that math may not be suited to look at, or it's just too reductive to try and show the complexity that exists. And I say that as someone who thinks that Pythagoras is right and everything is numbers.