₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness:
I do not insist on anything. I am just going by your "logic" and it is fun.

You want me to check your links when you and TV01 have been avoiding and ignoring the studies I quoted because they contradicted your views?

Selective reading is in fashion now? Ok, let me go with the flow this time

Oh really? You provided studies that denied all possible cases of biological influences on gender vocational choices?

And you are not insisting on anything abi?

Again it is obvious you don't even realise that your red herring argument makes a case for what you are arguing against - albeit in a totally unrelated topic. You have boxed yourself in without realising it.

C'mon, the lady-folk are counting on you to make a strong case - don't let them down.

Take sometime and parse your thoughts on the matter; Is the reason for a gender disparity in STEM completely cultural with no natural or biological basis?

Mindfulness:
Do it. The reason why you want to do it is that you do not like the taste of your own medicine.

This is not the question. The question is why do Blacks perform worse than ALL OTHER ethnic groups in math?

You have a knack for introducing red herrings when you reach the limits of your logical leanings. Blacks could be worse performers in maths for WHATEVER reasons, yet you insist on linking that with why women do not take to STEM the way men do. Logic fail. Even the researchers in that area have not made any such connections to the gender disparity issues in STEM, perhaps you know something they don't?

Your position has been to ignore or deny the influence nature has in the vocational choices that the different genders make. The red herring you are latching onto even makes a case for natural influence Double logic failure on your part.

Did you even peruse the link I dropped yesterday? That one is relevant to what we are discussing, here it is just in case you missed it http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

Mindfulness:
Good to know that there is a [size=18pt] variety of factors[/size] when it comes to race gaps but not when we talk about gender gaps.

I should have tagged my reply to you as a red herring alert so no one gets sucked into that hole.

I dare you to show how academic performance in relation to ethnicity is in any form whatsoever related to Gender Disparity in STEM.

Mindfulness:
This one is for TV01 and ApexTitan:

[img]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c1/fig01-03.gif[/img]

Black people are ALWAYS the weakest group. Nature or nurture?

Why only me and TV why not Coogar, he has been arguing from our angle too...

That NCES graph is representative of performance results of ninth graders from a wide variety of backgrounds, meaning there are several factors like socio-economic background, quality of education, etc, that may make any conclusive findings as relates to Nature/Nuture completely superfluous. For you to relate the nature or nurture argument to academic performance by race you have to create test scenarios where each side of the dichotomy can be studied uninfluenced by the other, i.e, test under the nature side then test under the nurture side

However!!!

whatever the findings are from that inquiry it is completely independent and unrelated to the subject under discussion. Is this not is a classic red herring device?

Stillfire:
Concerning misogyny and its manifestations include hatred, belittling of women, seeing masculinity as superior to femininity. And guess who gets more belittling - women who do not conform to the set partriachial standards. Now any woman who wants to be loved and protected under partriachial institutions would need to follow the rules. And the rule from the past to today is that she aspires to be a wife first, a man's property. She then reasons that if societal expectations are to become a wife and avoid this patriarchal angst towards her womanhood, she has to appropriate her aspirations to family, hence we have a high drop out rate of women in STEM.
Me too I'm willing to put my money down that if we take away these cultural barriers our percentages would increase.

I see, so you are angling for an increase in percentage and not gender parity in STEM? What percentage should we take as acceptable then?

Again your argument falls apart when we look at societies that have removed or greatly reduced these cultural barriers, the women in those places are still not entering STEM in droves as was hoped. Courses in humanities, social sciences and arts still command the majority of women's interests there and the "issue" of under-representation remains. This remains an "issue" or a problem that must be fixed only because activists and the likes close themselves to the possibility of there being a natural/biological basis for the reason why these gender choices are made. There is evidence that strongly suggests such a natural bias, factor this possibility into your considerations then re-appraise the situation.

The funny thing about this topic is the group of women who know in their heart of hearts that they find mathematics or engineering boring and unappealing but because it is now seen as the corner stone of national development turn around and claim that it was because of men/society/culture that they were prevented from entering those fields. (Cue that comic oga TV put up in the beginning of this thread. )

More evidence that there is a biological dimension as to why the genders make certain choices.

http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to
ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between
the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and
cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object)
and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger
interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the
face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in
origin. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Stillfire:
Yeah you missed it. I posted it on the first or second page. Look for it. Nigerian women roughly have the same rates as Western women



The premise of my argument between TV01 and I, was not about entering the STEM but about the girl child completing it. This would help push our numbers up. At the moment, our drop out rates are high. And one of the factors that limits the girl child are familial circumstances and sexist tendencies like this.

https://www.nairaland.com/2251479/why-modern-woman-sad

Why aim high, when you should be aiming to be a wife?



It is not an assertion. It is an opinion considering the pace at which their foremothers started on, Western women should be doing better.

Ah, thanks I've been looking for numbers from Nigeria for sometime now and was able to see it in the source link from which your initial post was based on.(http://www.ncsu.edu/aern/TAS11.2/TAS11.2_10Udeani.pdf)

My second question still remains and while it may be a tad pedantic I think this should be addressed. Misogyny is basically woman hate or hatred of women so one is curious to see or understand how women are prevented from entering STEM because of misogyny. Understand that I have singled out this term because it gets flung about as one of the major cultural attitudes that holds women back, I am not denying that girls are raised differently I just want to see the 'woman hatred' in this.

I am willing to put down my money that even if we remove the present day (cultural) barriers that keep women from STEM in Nigeria/Africa we will still have this case of under-representation. The nature of the STEM fields are such that the majority of women do not find them appealing; strip away all forms of acculturation and see how many women, in relation to men, get excited by the thought of working long hours in laboratories, rigs or workshops. Many women will still find the rigours of STEM incongruent with their natural leanings no matter what. A parallel to this argument can be found in the military; even if you prod and encourage them religiously many women, in relation to men, will still be hesitant in participating in units of the forces where hardcore infantry operations are the staples. The reasons for this have less to do with laziness per se and more to do with natural dispositions.

Stillfire:
Oh please, read from the beginning of my arguments. Nigerian girls roughly show to have the same rates of women in STEM despite our economic, social and misogynistic factors. It suffices to say that if these factors are taken out, Nigerian women would beat their Western counterparts.

Several questions for you:

Maybe I missed it somewhere but how did you arrive at this conclusion that Nigerian women have the same rates of representation in STEM as their Western counterparts?

What misogynistic factors prevents girls in Nigeria from entering STEM. (Any lady who didn't study STEM reading this thread is free to answer this one)

Are you seriously standing by your assertion that women in the West are lazy and that's why they are under-represented in STEM? Is there any real basis for this assertion?

He has no idea the rage he has triggered.

https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/trmp.gif

^^^

I think what CB is trying to say is that the attention and focus that STEM draws is because of its capacity to drive and create wealth for societies. All the leading and wealthy nations we have today are powered by activities from STEM and as a result many individuals who participated in these fields were correspondingly top earners in relation to other occupations. Showbiz, investment banking and politics as sectors on their own are unable to drive create wealth for societies the way STEM does even though they might produce wealthy people too. The impact on society of say the introduction of the smartphone which is a product of engineering cannot be matched by anything produced from investment banking. Politics or showbiz have their wealth making effects on only a small fraction of people in that field and they do not produce anything that is of consequence outside of those sectors.

investnow2013:
He being planning a Steel company at Igbere for donkey years now without anything on the ground!.He still have Igbere tv at Igbere Abia state!

Where in Igbere is he going to locate such a factory?

BluePearls:
someone here mentioned Silicon Valley... thanks for that... just finished season 1 and jumping to season 2. Nerds and geeks will like this one.

That show is probably one of the funniest comedies I watched this year. I'm eagerly waiting for the third season.

Stillfire:
Yeah I said it. They are lazy. Nigerian female rates despite our hindrances roughly match up with theirs. They had better go back to the drawing board.

. You think this shaming tactic will work on women like you? Good luck achieving results, we are watching.

You know there have been several attempts to steer girls into these fields and yet they haven't produced the desired result. Schools are redesigning and repackaging course programs (I read how a college in the US has fancy sounding names for its beginner programs in computer science - 'Gold' Program for those with no experience in the field and 'Black' Program for those with experience - all in a bid to lure the girls ). Mentoring and promotion of role models in the industry have been increased, add to this the loud campaigns in the media and yet it appears women continue to make choices that are confounding - they just aren't into STEM the way boys are. Their priorities are different and I say this is not a bad thing! One can almost sense the exasperation that activists feel, see this comment:

"No one country or region is ticking off all the boxes, and some are falling dismally short. This is a tremendous waste of resources. We are wasting resources educating women without following through, and we are missing out on the enormous potential that women represent." -Sophia Huyer, Founding executive director of Women in Global Science & Technology

Sure there have been occasional outliers and exceptions, some women have indeed pursued committed careers and made remarkable contributions in STEM but the overall majority seem to want to do other things. Boys still dominate these fields and will continue to do so for as long as there are boys in this world

Mindfulness:
Exactly! I am very careful. I do not like to take stands without proper knowledge and based on sentiments in order to feel better about myself.



I am trying to learn about the reasons here and elsewhere. The reasons you have provided are devoid of solid background knowledge and therefore not convincing. And you should know that a one-dimensional approach, that you have a strong preference for, is far from a proper depiction of the complexities of life.

Your questions already betray your position, you are just afraid to lay it down lest it be called out. Questioning allows you the chance to mount an offensive while maintaining an escape route. Interesting debate jujitsu there

Ah so this situation is confounding. For a couple of decades now the ideology had been presented that girls and boys are essentially the same and that the concept of gender differences was a social construct. Many policies and outlooks were then promulgated that failed to take into account the inherent strengths and dispositions of the different sexes, instead they approached the genders as an androgynous unit - the push for gender parity in STEM being one of them. Except that now the results are different from what the champions of these ideologies envisioned, women are not taking up roles in STEM like the men are despite all the efforts by activists and the likes.

It is interesting watching these people try to overrule nature's dictates.

Mindfulness is being careful not to take a definite stance so she adopts the querying approach.

Here, provide a reason why you think women in countries where gender equality is actively promoted are still shying away from STEM.

Mindfulness:
I am not confused, I am very clear.

Now when you compare what you have just quoted to what you said before, you will spot the huge difference that led to a false statement on your side.

All of the statements I have made here are very much in line with the findings of the study which is that there is a biological basis for the difference in choices. Huge difference and false statements? That's just the lure of pedantic thinking.

There are several findings and papers that in different ways suggest and support what me and other posters have being alluding to for months now which is that Men and Women are inherently different. This difference explains a lot of the issues and topics that are under focus today.

Mindfulness:
Yes, your choice of words is a problem because it distorts the results of this study.

You said the following:

"Boys will tend to choose to play with toy cars and trucks whereas girls tend to play with dolls."

The study shows, HOWEVER, that ...

1. boys have a strong preference and that
2. girls are flexible and show greater variability.

This is very different from what you have said.

Abeg let my words not lead you to confusion. Here is the main gist of that study as stated in that abstract (emphasis is mine) : Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females.

Mindfulness:
Wrong. Boys show consistent and strong preference for wheeled toys whereas girls are more flexible and show greater variability.

This is taken from the link you have quoted up there:


Abstract
Sex differences in toy preferences in children are marked, with boys expressing stronger and more rigid toy preferences than girls, whose preferences are more flexible. Socialization processes, parents, or peers encouraging play with gender-specific toys are thought to be the primary force shaping sex differences in toy preference. A contrast in view is that toy preferences reflect biologically-determined preferences for specific activities facilitated by specific toys. Sex differences in juvenile activities, such as rough-and-tumble play, peer preferences, and infant interest, share similarities in humans and monkeys. Thus if activity preferences shape toy preferences, male and female monkeys may show toy preferences similar to those seen in boys and girls. We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys, living within a 135 monkey troop, with human wheeled toys and plush toys. Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females. The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization. We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.

Err, come again. Is the problem my choice of words? Boys will tend to and Boys show consistent and strong preference...

Girls show greater variability

Semantics anyone?

Mindfulness:
Very good question.

I guess because countries are in high demand of engineers and need to tackle skills shortages.

Occupations in the STEM fields are in high demand the world over however this approach to solving the skills shortage isn't wholesome and will only lead to the creation of different types of shortages in the future. The gender with the natural disposition to work effectively in these fields should continue to be encouraged and supported.

Stillfire:
TV01, I'm glad you are aware of the familial factors and the way women are 'nurtured' that 'hinders' our progress.
And yes we should at least be at 45% at the moment if women are socially brought up to prioritize traits like assertiveness, doggedness, not modesty. And yes I am making estimations not assertions , because for the fact that we are merely having a discussion, we can make hypothetical statements, and a scientist often puts her opinion and estimations in her discussion section of her scientific reports, tehehe.
So no I'm not being 'ideological' but doing what scientists do, make hypothetical statements and then work towards proving it.

I chose 45% at the moment because men have always had the benefit of a head start. I'm not stupid to make foolhardy estimations of 60% at the moment.
As of my lazy comment, as of the 1930s we start seeing women in physics, chemistry fields. So yes I think Western women have grown lazy over the years.
I have no worries though Nigerian women match them despite the incriminating factors we have in our country, both economic and sexist views that most of you here would wish women to aspire too. To think kitchen! But not under my watch. Tehehe

Women have grown lazy over the years? Kai, don't let those Scandinavian women, who in-spite of the strong push by their governments to enter STEM fields have refused to budge, hear you o.

It's wrong to even start with the premise that this under representation is wrong. This is just what it is. Simple.

Here is some evidence that corroborates the notion that the gender choices we make from the get go are to a large extent biologically determined http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20232129 Boys will tend to choose to play with toy cars and trucks whereas girls tend to play with dolls. With this in mind it cannot be far-fetched to understand the reasons behind the careers that boys and girls choose when they grow up.

Another one that finds a similar occurrence in animals here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452921

I would argue that it is an innate realisation of what science is only beginning to uncover that informed the prevailing societal directions and conventions that we have in place up until now as regards how children are brought up. It is all these modern day and so-called progressive thinking that seeks to disrupt the harmony.

^^^

Yeah that ish was just plain wrong. Biology and medicine, true sciences that they are, are demanding courses in their own rights.

To put things back on track the fascinating question here is that why are women under-represented in the STEM fields even when the cultural and societal hurdles that checked their participation in times past are removed?

Why do some people see this as a problem so much so that they want some kind of government intervention or cultural effort to address this? They are only creating a problem where none existed before - women, as has been stated earlier, will tend to make career choices that are in line with their inherent natural dispositions. Women are nurturers by nature so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they dominate the Health sciences and are under represented in other STEM fields, boys tend to build things. This is all natural. It's only activists and politicians who are not in tune with how biology and nature actually work that will go about trying to fix something that isn't broken here.

OK this thread escalated to something else rather quickly.

https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/wibd.gif

The interesting thing about this particular topic is that this is one of the areas that the equalist ideology will hit a clear and insurmountable wall. Nature will always trump ideology; all the touchy-feely motivations that drive current day agitations, such as the cry for more women in STEM fields, will have to give way to natural facts.

RIP to ill-formed theories like 'gender is a social construct' and 'we are all the same'. We ain't!

Interesting discussion here.

Something that the people who back the push for gender equality in the STEM fields seem to downplay or out-rightly ignore is the fact that there is a marked difference in how the male and female brains are wired. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders, http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ ) These differences among other things, ultimately hold the reason why the different genders even under identical conditions tend to sway in large numbers in the directions of particular choices.

This is a biological reality so twist and turn as some people may, men and women will naturally gravitate towards certain fields. This is a given so any ideology that places itself against the fact will ultimately turn out to be an exercise in futility.

This all appears to be a problem because champions of the equality movement feel "oppressed" and "sidelined" whereas in reality this is just nature running its course, all of the observable data out there corroborates this fact. Scandinavian countries even with their strong position on gender equality still have STEM fields dominated by men.

hahn:
The moral of this story is wrong. Marriage is not tit for tat.

How will one night's lack of sex affect my reasoning. If she didn't agree to make love at night, we can do it first thing in the morning.

Only men who are single and live with their parents will find this amusing

What is marriage for?

Who would’ve believed then that Nigeria today would have more than 167 million mobile phones?!

Err pretty much every GSM operator in the country. They all knew they were entering into Africa's largest market so it was reasonable to dream big.

The male reproductive imperative on a basic, fundamental, level is single-fold; to spread his seed in as many females as possible. This is to ensure or increase the likelihood of the perpetuation of his genes, the continuation of the species. In general the average male has significantly more levels of testosterone, the hormone which amongst other things is responsible for the sex drive in both males and females. It is the high level of this hormone in men with the corresponding high libido in relation to that of the woman and - importantly - how they go about satiating this drive that makes people say men are natural cheats!

Click bait article.

So it is still possible for big companies to announce new products from out of the blue without any leaks. Impressive. The surface book sure looks nice.

Firefire:
For equity and away from the daily robbery by a particular region.

See my latest comment.

I get that your objective is fairness but my angle is that if we are to achieve true fairness in this matter then it is only regions that have petroleum resources that should be considered for licenses. Trying to evenly share it out appears like the right way to go but it means there will be zones that will "reap where they didn't sow" because we want everyone to be "satisfied".

Firefire:
“He (Buhary) can supervise ministries but cannot be a minister because if he is, he must be screened and approved by the Senate.”

Nigerians would prefer Buhary takes the role of Minister of Defense, being a retired general and lead the battle against the terrorist. (Forget the C-in-C story... )

Buhary, remove your eyes from the oil wells... at the expiration of the current licenses in 2016, the oil wells must be evenly distributed among Nigeria geopolitical zones. (We are watching...)

This is not under the topic of this thread but I have to ask; what makes you think distributing the oil well licenses evenly along the 6 geopolitical zones is a reasonable or fair arrangement? There are zones that have no petroleum resources yet you want them to have licenses too?