Equality and Inequality?

[I, Brian]

It is easily observed in our western societies that "old boys clubs" are railed at and labelled as discriminatory - yet "women-only" goups are ten-a-penny and freely allowed to discriminate against any male presence.

The problem is that all too often issues of equality send the pendulum swinging from one end of discrimination to another, and it swings in all ways. At the end of the day egalitarian principles are often compromised by a form of "over-compensating".

There has certainly been - in recent years - an emphasis on employing people solely on the basis of their skin colour or gender. Although perhaps there are certain instances where this is specifically necessarily, there is a very real danger of tokenism simply creating different forms of negative discrimination.

And as we should already know from our most recent civil histories, reactionism follows easily in the footsteps of prejudice.

Something for discussion...

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It is easily observed in our western societies that "old boys clubs" are railed at and labelled as discriminatory - yet "women-only" goups are ten-a-penny and freely allowed to discriminate against any male presence.

The problem is that all too often issues of equality send the pendulum swinging from one end of discrimination to another, and it swings in all ways. At the end of the day egalitarian principles are often compromised by a form of "over-compensating".

There has certainly been - in recent years - an emphasis on employing people solely on the basis of their skin colour or gender. Although perhaps there are certain instances where this is specifically necessarily, there is a very real danger of tokenism simply creating different forms of negative discrimination.

And as we should already know from our most recent civil histories, reactionism follows easily in the footsteps of prejudice.

Something for discussion...

We also need to remember that people accustomed to privilege often perceive that privilege as "normal" and "right". So the loss of privilege is felt as an attack on their rights rather than the extension of rights to those who had none.

We are still a long way from equality, so it is ironic and sad to see petty sniping at the few steps that have been taken so far.

Tokenism is a typical reaction to the guilt feelings induced when it is understood that the current situation is wrong, yet those who can change it are reluctant to forego the privileges consequent on change.

It may be a socially necessary temporary phenomenon. But it does nothing to truly change an unjust situation and can do a lot of harm to both groups.

Tokenism is an extension of privilege to a few "exceptional" individuals; it is not an overall raising of the unprivileged group to a level of equality with the dominant group.

Tokenism is also extended on the condition that the "token" become "one of us" i.e. takes on the unchanged culture of the privileged group and doesn't rock the boat.

While everyone has a story about the white male applicant who was passed over in favour of a non-white and/or female applicant for political reasons, it is still that case that white male applicants have a much better chance to get employment, especially in middle-to-upper management.

It is also the case that tokenism often does not last beyond one generation. I have seen that in my place of work. In the last year alone, three women in senior management, hired when affirmative action was either popular or required, have retired, and all have been replaced by males. At no time was any significant effort made to go beyond tokenism and increase the overall level of women in the organization, so that there would be a pool of qualified women, as well as men, prepared to step into the shoes of the pioneers.

Tokenism, therefore, does not truly get to the root of the stratification of society on racial and gender lines. For that to happen we need a genuine modification of the whole culture.

We may consider that we have gotten somewhere when we see realities such as:

At least 40% of members of Congress (both houses) are female, with similar proportions in state legislatures and municipal councils,

At least 40% of Directors of major corporations and CEO's of same are female.

At least 40% of kindergarten teachers are male.

At least 40% of librarians are male.

There is a similar gender ratio in post-secondary classes for engineering and nutrition.

No one raises an eyebrow when a man takes 3-12 months paternity leave to care for his child while his wife returns to work.

There is a 24-hour affordable, subsidized child care centre in every neighbourhood so that every family has access to a safe place for their children during working hours.

Sole-support parents are recognized as performing a public service by taking care of their children and receive adequate income to do so without workfare requirements.

Similar criteria can be considered for race and class.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by gluadys

We may consider that we have gotten somewhere when we see realities such as:

At least 40% of members of Congress (both houses) are female, with similar proportions in state legislatures and municipal councils,

At least 40% of Directors of major corporations and CEO's of same are female.

At least 40% of kindergarten teachers are male.

At least 40% of librarians are male.

That's exactly the sort of point that I'd like to raise for discussion. Whereas there are certainly inequalities to be addressed, my initial post is intended to stir for debate issues of inequalities being used to fight inequalities.

And the figures above - are you really saying that it is desirable that every working environment have a gender ratio directly equivalent to the wider population?

Let's take two extreme subjects - maths and art. Let's acknowledge first of all that there are different social prejudices regarding these fields, and that girls in mixed comprehensives, for example, will sometimes be actively steered from taking maths at a higher level; and that boys may be steered from art subjects if "science" and "maths" were seen as more useful in terms of long-term employment goals.

However, let's dare to make a dangerous presumption - that perhaps cognitively, and without regard for gender-stereotypes, that girls may generally have a natural predilection for art, and that boys may have a general predilection for maths.

That means to ensure that gender ratios reflect the general population, a new set of prejudices have to be created - that girls must do maths instead of art, because it suits another set of bias to do so; and that boys must be steered from maths and into art, for precisely the same reasons.

The problem here, IMO, is that such an argument not simply redirects the forms of discrimination, but also entirely compromises issues of choice.

IMO egalitarian principles are about empowering the individual to make their own choices, to aim to succeed in their own chosen specialities - not about exchanging one form of inequality for another.

That's what I'd like to tackle in this thread as a discussion topic.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Every lick of common sense in my being is telling me to run, screaming, and not to look back. Yet, the masochist in me enjoys a good whoopin'.

While everyone has a story about the white male applicant who was passed over in favour of a non-white and/or female applicant for political reasons, it is still that case that white male applicants have a much better chance to get employment, especially in middle-to-upper management.

I do not have a "story" to tell, that white male passed over for political reasons is me. I was in high school when Alan Bakke won his reverse descrimination lawsuit, but the court made it a point that any others must prove so on a case by case basis. End result, I am only now able to continue my education, some 20 years later, in large part because I now fit another "minority" group, the disabled.

I do not make my disability an issue, I am only thankful that doors have begun to open to allow me an opportunity previously denied. My position is that because there are a few things I can no longer do, I must do the things I can even better than those around me, or at the very least at the best of my ability. I earned my AS in business management Summa Cum Laude, and I am on course to complete my Bachelor's with similar marks.

I resent being considered a token. If I cannot be judged by my merits, I do not want the position. I also resent handing a degree or position to someone who isn't properly qualified, and/or whose heart is not into what they are doing.

That said, I have absolutely no problem with anybody, of any gender, color or other qualifier, from proceeding to do the best they are qualified for. If the best "man" for a position is a woman, let her have it. But do not grant her the position solely because she is a woman.

I think Brian is on to something, although he was able to express it much more delicately than I could. There are differences between the sexes. This is neither good or bad, it simply is. I for one, am thankful for the differences. What is the french? Vive la differance!

PS. I see no benefit in retroactive antagonism. Holding someone back in order to benefit others is defeating the purpose. Reverse descrimination is still descrimination. What, pray tell, have I done to deserve being descriminated against? Being born a white male in a poor family? Is that now a crime?

I can understand the political attitude, but I do think it is aimed at the wrong people.

[juantoo3]

At least 40% of members of Congress (both houses) are female, with similar proportions in state legislatures and municipal councils,

At least 40% of Directors of major corporations and CEO's of same are female.

At least 40% of kindergarten teachers are male.

At least 40% of librarians are male.

If I may be allowed, could I add to this list?

Perhaps 40% stay at home dads. I truly would be happy to stay at home with the kids, if that were a genuine option.

At least 40% women construction workers, in constant danger of their lives at little pay.

At least 40% women OTR truck (lorry) drivers, on the road at minimum two weeks at a stretch, only able to visit with their families over the phone. That way they can see how "4 wheelers" drive for themselves, as well as miss junior's first steps, words, etc through no fault of their own.

At least 40% women freight handlers, heavy lifters, ditch diggers and assorted other day labor at minimum wages.

At least 40% women Garbage truck operators. A thankless career to aspire to!

At least 40% women automobile mechanics, who smell like axle grease 24/7 no matter how many baths they take.

Shall I continue?

Equality across the board is a noble aspiration. But what I see described is the sharing of the icing, while ignoring the crumbs.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

And the figures above - are you really saying that it is desirable that every working environment have a gender ratio directly equivalent to the wider population?

More or less. If I were going to be hard-nosed about it, I would have insisted on 50%. But that sort of thing would require quotas, reserved places, etc. which do as much harm as good. Achieving social equality in all fields should come naturally, as it were--through changes in basic social attitudes and the removal of gender (and other) barriers.

However, let's dare to make a dangerous presumption - that perhaps cognitively, and without regard for gender-stereotypes, that girls may generally have a natural predilection for art, and that boys may have a general predilection for maths.

Don't make a presumption. Make a hypothesis and test it. Presumption re-inforces inequalities. We cannot know if such gender preferences are real without actual testing.

IMO egalitarian principles are about empowering the individual to make their own choices, to aim to succeed in their own chosen specialities

Exactly. And since it is unreasonable (except where testing has shown otherwise) to presume that individuals would choose specialities on a gender basis, the outcome of egalitarian principles empowering indviduals will be near-balance of genders in the vast majority of functions. Why would men NOT choose to be nurses as often as women? Why would women NOT choose to be auto mechanics as often as men?

That is why an unreasonable imbalance in gender in any field must be seen as prima facie evidence that barriers to gender equality exist.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

If I may be allowed, could I add to this list?

Perhaps 40% stay at home dads. I truly would be happy to stay at home with the kids, if that were a genuine option.

At least 40% women construction workers, in constant danger of their lives at little pay.

At least 40% women OTR truck (lorry) drivers, on the road at minimum two weeks at a stretch, only able to visit with their families over the phone. That way they can see how "4 wheelers" drive for themselves, as well as miss junior's first steps, words, etc through no fault of their own.

At least 40% women freight handlers, heavy lifters, ditch diggers and assorted other day labor at minimum wages.

At least 40% women Garbage truck operators. A thankless career to aspire to!

At least 40% women automobile mechanics, who smell like axle grease 24/7 no matter how many baths they take.

Shall I continue?

Hey no one is denying that lots of guys do joe jobs (though I question whether ditch diggers today make minimum wage. That's not manual labour any more. You have to have training in operating the machinery.) And I have no problem agreeing that women should be found in all the occupations you named. Most of them (including ditch digging) pay more than most of the jobs in the pink collar ghetto and many women would love to have them.

So, indeed continue, but this time find as many prestige jobs for guys to aim for that are currently dominated by women.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


oh my naivte is going to show through here

that's ok though... i don't really mind it.

to see others as self, this is the task. if we veiw all beings as ourselves, there would be no room for discrimination or predjudice.

quite frankly.. i would perfer that equality be so prevelant that when asked the question "how many minorities work at your company?" the executive would have a puzzled look and respond "what is a minority?"

is it widely known that an unmarried, white male between the ages of 18-50 is the minority in the united states? (though that could have changed by now..)...

[Zenda71]

Interesting discussion. A few more statistics ... in my state, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, women make only 70% of what men make, with the median income around $30,000. In addition, let's not forget that bugaboo of domestic life ... how many working women also work an unpaid "second shift" at home cleaning, cooking, paying bills, and taking care of children in an amount that is disproportionate to what their husbands do?

I am not for retroactive discrimination; however, until the deck is not so stacked against women (and others), I believe that something should be done to level the playing field.

I am very pleased that some authors now write characters and do not address their "race" until later in the book, if at all. I wonder if real life will ever be that way ... that you see a person before you see your assumption of who that person is ...

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by gluadys

Don't make a presumption. Make a hypothesis and test it. Presumption re-inforces inequalities. We cannot know if such gender preferences are real without actual testing.

...

Exactly. And since it is unreasonable (except where testing has shown otherwise) to presume that individuals would choose specialities on a gender basis, the outcome of egalitarian principles empowering indviduals will be near-balance of genders in the vast majority of functions. Why would men NOT choose to be nurses as often as women? Why would women NOT choose to be auto mechanics as often as men?

That is why an unreasonable imbalance in gender in any field must be seen as prima facie evidence that barriers to gender equality exist.

I've been encountering reports fairly recently that claim specific cognitive differences generalised between the genders (that's why I choose maths and art as example subjects - processing of spatial information was one of the noted general differences). That's the sort of presumption I'm going on. (I'm afraid I don't have any cites at the moment, but I can try and locate them if you wish.)

However, if these reports manage to uphold their case over time, wouldn't they translate as some form of gender discrepancies within certain employment sectors?

Wouldn't it then an unreasonable act of prejudice to indeed seek to ensure that set target gender ratios existed across all employment?

Also - how would you factor in clear issues of childrearing - such as 9 months pregnancy added to 18 months breasteeding? Surely that's going to impact some areas of work and employment? (Btw - Paternity leave only recently became a legislated for within the past year in the UK- we are now allowed of a couple of weeks off in the post-natal period.)

I'm trying to work on the discussion point here of dismantling inequalities, rather than creating new inequalities to replace other inequalities.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to all!

Originally Posted by gluadys

Achieving social equality in all fields should come naturally, as it were--through changes in basic social attitudes and the removal of gender (and other) barriers.

Agreed, but that is not achieved by holding one segment down for the benefit of all others. Every minority claims disparity at the expense of the "white male." The white male population can only bear so much burden. Not to mention, as I tried briefly to describe, the burden is not falling on those responsible. Am I to be held accountable for the sins of my (imagined) parents? My real parents sure didn't cause the perceived disparities.

Don't make a presumption. Make a hypothesis and test it. Presumption re-inforces inequalities. We cannot know if such gender preferences are real without actual testing.

I believe the Meyers-Briggs tests address some of this, at least in general terms. (Incidentally, developed by a mother/daughter team) There are skills that do manifest in general terms along gender lines. Women, for example, have better fine-motor skills, and are better at multi-tasking. There are other batteries of aptitude tests I have been put through over the last decade, and I have found it interesting discussing the general findings in terms of gender with the test administrators.

Exactly. And since it is unreasonable (except where testing has shown otherwise) to presume that individuals would choose specialities on a gender basis, the outcome of egalitarian principles empowering indviduals will be near-balance of genders in the vast majority of functions. Why would men NOT choose to be nurses as often as women?

I will grant that testing is not as all pervasive as your argument might prefer, yet in light of the current politics surrounding the issue, would not such testing promote disparity rather than dispel it? The politics of equality tend to dismiss or ignore testing and the results most probably because the results are counter to the stated aims.

Why would women NOT choose to be auto mechanics as often as men?

Because they might break a fingernail, sorry. They don't like inhaling and smelling like gasoline and diesel fuel, and being perpetually stained under their fingernails. They don't like busting their knuckles or slicing a finger wide open.

I am seeing a very idealized picture painted that just doesn't exist in reality. Not that women should not have opportunities, but that women would actually want an awful lot of what those opportunities really represent.

In an ideal world, if a woman wanted to be a mechanic, and all of the drawbacks were acceptable to her, then by all means she should be a mechanic. But that is a very rare bird indeed.

That is why an unreasonable imbalance in gender in any field must be seen as prima facie evidence that barriers to gender equality exist.

Not necessarily. We have already breached physiological differences in this discussion. Social preference, which would manifest in individual preference, could just as easily create "unreasonable imbalance." "I want to be just like mom, or aunt rose, or Martha Stewart." When a woman wants to be like Colin Powell, I will be impressed. The closest I have seen so far, and I am impressed, is Madelaine Albright.

This does not preclude genuine gender prejudice, but since such has been officially outlawed, it should not bear directly now, and the previous influence is showing definite signs of eroding.

Hey no one is denying that lots of guys do joe jobs (though I question whether ditch diggers today make minimum wage. That's not manual labour any more. You have to have training in operating the machinery.) And I have no problem agreeing that women should be found in all the occupations you named.

I think our perspectives are vastly different here. The ditch-digging I was specifically referring to involves the use of an old fashioned shovel. In a former life, I helped build a hospital. Other than the mechanical room, all of the trenches dug under that hospital were by hand. I know, my mark was on every foot of length. And the pay was hardly anything to brag about, it barely covered the bills. I have swung a shovel on many more than one occasion elsewhere.

Yes, there are machinery operators such as in highway construction. Have you looked to see how many are women lately? Perhaps not your ideal 40%, but there are quite a few, just as there are more and more OTR truck drivers and other occupations.

In my experience, the women are also more likely to quit these professions once they realize the hassles and downsides. Being out in the weather or away from home are serious downsides that guys just have to take in stride to pay the bills. The gals, in my experience, will if they have to, but at the first opportunity they head for something easier. This is not all-inclusive, there are guys that look for desk jobs too. But it is very seldom I hear of a gal who truly, of her own volition, wants to be a truck driver or heavy equipment operator, or frankly any other seriously grudging, challenging, back-breaking labor.

Most of them (including ditch digging) pay more than most of the jobs in the pink collar ghetto and many women would love to have them.

I'm sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with this. It is an imaginary concoction. I know a lot of guys who would trade their jobs for these "pink collar" imaginations in a heart beat; better pay, air-conditioning, flex time, etc., etc. etc. Where I think your argument is valid is where two people, a male and a female, both work the exact same job. That is where pay discrepency manifests, and in that you are correct. But to imagine that women could, or would, aspire to any profession automatically ("naturally"), is just not borne out by the reality of my experience. Heck, I know some women who couldn't be dragged kicking and screaming to a job, that's what husbands (epecially ex's) are for. Of course, one could argue there are men who won't work either. Yes, but try finding an alimony settlement where she pays him to sit on his butt.

So, indeed continue, but this time find as many prestige jobs for guys to aim for that are currently dominated by women

Ah, but this dodges the point. I always hear of contesting the icing, the "prestige" jobs, what is wrong with contesting the crumbs, the "joe jobs?"

I will note a couple of things tho', for instance, with the legal paranoia that exists in our society, why should a man in his right mind want to be a kindergarten teacher or serve in child-care? Allow me to explain. There is the automatic assumption levelled by society at males of prowling for a molestation victim. And then the poor guy who is sincere, and is just changing a toddler's diaper, is in jeopardy of Family Services. The social worker asks the child, "does daddy touch you there?" When the child innocently says yes, the dad loses his kid to foster care, the child loses his home to an innocent remark, and the man's reputation is smeared no matter how hard he challenges in court, and the social servant is held to be above the law. He is damned by his gender, automatically assumed to be a pervert.

How come women don't want male midwives or obstetrics nurses?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

to see others as self, this is the task. if we veiw all beings as ourselves, there would be no room for discrimination or predjudice.

Oh, absolutely agreed.

quite frankly.. i would perfer that equality be so prevelant that when asked the question "how many minorities work at your company?" the executive would have a puzzled look and respond "what is a minority?"

This would be nice, but all of us have a long way to go. Of course, once we get there, this question would not even be asked.

is it widely known that an unmarried, white male between the ages of 18-50 is the minority in the united states? (though that could have changed by now..)...

By experience, I can say that even if this is not so by population, it definitely is so by social and legal standards.

Originally Posted by Zenda71

Interesting discussion. A few more statistics ... in my state, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, women make only 70% of what men make, with the median income around $30,000. In addition, let's not forget that bugaboo of domestic life ... how many working women also work an unpaid "second shift" at home cleaning, cooking, paying bills, and taking care of children in an amount that is disproportionate to what their husbands do?

This is all valid and generally applicable across this country. Yet, for all of the polls and research and assorted b.s., I would love to see what 30K a year looks like. Increasingly, men are helping more around the house. In my case, I have no choice, either I do it, or it doesn't get done.

I am not for retroactive discrimination; however, until the deck is not so stacked against women (and others), I believe that something should be done to level the playing field.

Agreed, I don't know how, but the status quo ain't working.

...you see a person before you see your assumption of who that person is ...

Yes, a very valid point, across the board.

Originally Posted by Brian

I've been encountering reports fairly recently that claim specific cognitive differences generalised between the genders (that's why I choose maths and art as example subjects - processing of spatial information was one of the noted general differences). That's the sort of presumption I'm going on. (I'm afraid I don't have any cites at the moment, but I can try and locate them if you wish.)

I know of some of the things you are alluding to, but this research is sometimes dismissed by ardent feminists because they highlight general differences. We can't have different but equal, you know...

However, if these reports manage to uphold their case over time, wouldn't they translate as some form of gender discrepancies within certain employment sectors?

I would be inclined to think so, assuming individuals were totally free of influence in choosing their talent paths. There are some components that are socially tailored by tradition, in that gluadys is correct. There are components that are physiological, in that you are correct.

Wouldn't it then an unreasonable act of prejudice to indeed seek to ensure that set target gender ratios existed across all employment?

I would be inclined to think so.

Also - how would you factor in clear issues of childrearing - such as 9 months pregnancy added to 18 months breasteeding? Surely that's going to impact some areas of work and employment? (Btw - Paternity leave only recently became a legislated for right - we now get an option of a couple of weeks off in the post-natal period.)

Good point about pregnancy and breast feeding. We have an unpaid family leave proviso passed in the last few years, I forget now for how many weeks, and the company must be of a certain size before it applies.

I'm trying to work on the discussion point here of dismantling inequalities, rather than creating new inequalities to replace other inequalities.

Thanks. I don't know how to do it, I just know that the way it is being done, and the ways promoted of doing so by retroactively discriminating, are not working. A lot has to do with the attitudes of society. But at the core is the individual. Maybe I can't change society, but I can and have changed me.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

I was bored, so I went to do a little research:

http://www.rpi.edu/~verwyc/Chap9tm.htm
Not a comprehensive indicator, but a couple of notes are worth bringing forth. "Tests of Mechanical Ability. Although a certain level of dexterity is required for any occupation involving the manipulation of machinery, spatial perception and mechanical knowledge are important determiners of performance, in addition to dexterity based psycho-motor tests.
Males typically score higher than Females on these two test types.
This gender difference increases through high school, indicating a cultural component. Hemispheric lateralization before birth also contributes to the Male advantage in spatial processing.
The Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test (1980): Test items consist of drawings and questions concerning mechanical relationships and understanding of Newtonian physics.
Test scores are moderately correlated with on the job measures of mechanical performance.
Separate norms are provided for each gender, reliability is lower for women than for men.

http://www.ets.org/research/dload/RR-02-19.pdf
This is a pdf file that I didn't figure out how to cut and paste the abstract, but it is a research piece by three women noting the gender differences on mathematics tests, and an attempt at solving the difference.

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/univtestcomparison.html
Gender score gaps: SAT I, Verbal: males 5 points higher, Math: males 34 points higher; SAT II, Math IIC: males 35 points higher; ACT, Composite score: males 0.2 points higher

http://www.ipem.org/cbsepro.htm
The following inferences may be drawn on the basis of the analysis :
The boys have performed better than the girls on both TEA Aptitude and Achievement tests as a whole.
The girls have performed significantly better than the boys on the verbal and language ability sections of the aptitude test.
The boys have done better than girls on all the three sections of the achievement test more so on the mathematics section where the obtained difference is greatest.
The deviation obtained on the total aptitude and achievement tests and different sections of both the tests is greater among boys than among girls.

http://www.counseling.org/site/News2...yu9kr6l1.app8b
Gender Bias in Aptitude Testing
Intelligence tests have not been shown to produce significant differences between men and women. Mean scores for both sexes are essentially the same. On specific aptitudes, however, women tend to score higher than men on tests of verbal ability, whereas men obtain higher scores on numerical and spatial aptitudes (Eagly, 1995; Maccoby& Jacklin, 1974; Neisser et al., 1996). Women tend to achieve higher grades in elementary school, high school, and in college (Han & Hoover,1994), although the difference in college tends to diminish when controlled for types of majors and types of courses (Hood, 1968).
The question regarding lower scores on mathematical ability is a controversial one at the present time; some argue that the difference is an inherent sex-related difference, whereas others argue that it is due to stereotypical attitudes on the part of parents and teachers, which result in the two sexes being differentially encouraged to learn mathematics. Recent evidence yields at least partial support for the latter explanation; the gap has decreased among adolescents over the past 40 years and has virtually disappeared in unselected populations (Eagly,1995; Hoover & Han, 1995). The widely reported substantial sex differences are now found only in specific populations, such as college-bound youth on the SAT or on the National Merit test. Again, this mean difference is of less consequence to counselors as they work with individual students of either sex who may obtain scores anywhere throughout the entire range.
A recent development dealing with the gender bias of tests is related to the awarding of scholarships to the top 1%or 2% of scorers on the basis of a scholastic aptitude test. In the case of awarding certain scholarships, this has resulted in a higher proportion of men receiving scholarships than women. A major cause of this problem is the difference in the variance on test scores between the sexes in a number of academic areas including mathematics (Eagly, 1995; Han& Hoover, 1994). On such measures, including quantitative reasoning, men vary over a greater range than do women (Benbow, 1988). Thus as the top 1% contains more men than women, so does the bottom 1%. There is pressure to develop tests to qualify for scholarships that eliminate this type of bias, but if the variance hypothesis holds, this will be a difficult task. In the case of the National Merit Testing Program, different cut-off scores are already used for different states, so that the top 1% of the students in each state qualify. If this practice were extended to the sexes, then qualifying scores could be established to ensure that the top 1% of both men and women would qualify. (emphasis mine)

I am disappointed that there was not a lot of information highlighting the things females excel at compared to males, it seemed like most of the stuff I looked at was aimed at males, which is sad.

I also saw a lot of stuff that downplayed the differences, or that were in the process of "equalizing" the differences. At least the last reference acknowledged that genuine equalization may not be possible. It is still anybody's game on the subject of equalizing aptitude tests.

[I, Brian]

Btw - just a quick point - I edited my sentence on paternity leave as the former version didn't make sense - just in case anyone notices a discrepancy between my comments in post#10 and Juantoo's quote in post#11.

[gluadys]

We need to remember, whenever we are comparing genuine differences between men and women (e.g. men do test better, generally, on spatial orientation, while women do test better, generally on verbal comprehension) that these are averages.

What we get are two bell curves, one for men and one for women. But the bell curves overlap. Only in the outside margins do you find only men or only women.

When it comes to seeking employment and being hired, the important information is how wide are the margins, or how large is the area of overlap.

If the two bell curves overlap over 90% of the area, then effectively, for the purposes of employment, there is no reason to take gender into account. 90% of women will be as good or better at the job as 90% of the men. Only 10% of the men will be better than all women, and only 10% of the women will do poorer than all men.

So, since one hires individuals rather than statistics, there is no basis for presuming this male candidate will be better than this female candidate. He may be in the lower quarter of male scores, while she may be in the upper quarter of female scores, making her the more desirable candidate. (Reverse gender for fields in which women have the higher level of skill.)

As long as there is a large field of overlap between the skill levels of the two groups, we should still expect a close level of parity in employment in that field.

Even when there is little overlap on the two scales, it may still be that this candidate is better qualified than that candidate of the opposite gender. So there should still be no gender bias when hiring. If person has exceptional skills for his/her gender, there is no reason to bar that person, as an individual, from accessing employment usually shunned by his/her gender.

However, when doing a gender analysis of employment in the field as a whole, the differential would be a factor in this case. One would expect to see more of one gender in a field for which most of its members exceed the capacity of most members of the other gender.

But in how many skill sets does one gender predominate to that extent? Because boys in general tend to have poorer reading skills than girls, do we maintain barriers to males entering any and all fields where reading is an important skill? Or do we base access on individual ability rather than statistical data?

Finally, of course, there are few occupations that are dependent on just one skill. Most will require a mixture of skills, some of which are more likely to be demonstrated by females and some of which are more likely to be demonstrated by males. So which candidate then gets the nod?

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards to all!

Agreed, but that is not achieved by holding one segment down for the benefit of all others. Every minority claims disparity at the expense of the "white male." The white male population can only bear so much burden. Not to mention, as I tried briefly to describe, the burden is not falling on those responsible. Am I to be held accountable for the sins of my (imagined) parents? My real parents sure didn't cause the perceived disparities.

Whenever injustice is corrected, it is perceived as inflicting injustice on those who are required to give up privileges. And sometimes, in specific cases, there is reverse injustice. All we can do is try to keep these to a minimum. We still have a long, long way to go to achieve a fair deal for women and minorities, so the burden for the white male will necessarily become greater, not less.

For it is still the case that the segment being held down for the benefit of others is the female and non-white segment for the benefit of the white, male segment. I know that is not obvious in your personal situation, but it is nevertheless true overall.

And, of course, there are other environmental factors as well, such as the loss of US manufacturing jobs to other regions of the globe. So young American males are competing for a smaller pie, even apart from facing competition from segments of society which did not use to be in the field.

AS for who caused the disparities, who is responsible---the roots of the present lie in centuries of the past. None of us are personally responsible for creating it. What we are responsible for is correcting it.

I will grant that testing is not as all pervasive as your argument might prefer, yet in light of the current politics surrounding the issue, would not such testing promote disparity rather than dispel it? The politics of equality tend to dismiss or ignore testing and the results most probably because the results are counter to the stated aims.

Part of the problem with testing, as you noted in your other post, is that the test itself can be biased. Also test results can be misused. So there are a lot of issues here as well. It goes back then to not making presumptions about what people will choose to do, or be fitted to do, on the basis of gender or disability or any other such characteristic.

Because they might break a fingernail, sorry. They don't like inhaling and smelling like gasoline and diesel fuel, and being perpetually stained under their fingernails. They don't like busting their knuckles or slicing a finger wide open.

That is exactly the kind of stereotype we have to struggle against. I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong in thinking this is true even of most women, much less of all women.

In an ideal world, if a woman wanted to be a mechanic, and all of the drawbacks were acceptable to her, then by all means she should be a mechanic. But that is a very rare bird indeed.[/size]

Not at all. Since home ec and auto mechanic classes were made available to all comers, the gender balance in both is equalizing rapidly in high schools. My daughter took auto mechanics and she was far from being the only female.

Now, I grant, that in some cases girls prefer to be in an auto-mechanics class that is all female and boys prefer a home-ec class that is geared especially to boys. While we still have a gender biased world, that is likely a necessary concession to reality. But the evidence is that the "rare bird" phenomenon does not apply in either case.

I think our perspectives are vastly different here. The ditch-digging I was specifically referring to involves the use of an old fashioned shovel.

Well, catch up with the times. Most ditch-digging in North America today is done with a back-hoe which a women is just as capable of operating as a man. And the skill level required commands a decent wage as well.

Yes, there are machinery operators such as in highway construction. Have you looked to see how many are women lately? Perhaps not your ideal 40%, but there are quite a few, just as there are more and more OTR truck drivers and other occupations.

Yes, I have noticed. One field in which they seem to have achieved parity is in public transit. I see just as many females operating buses and subways today as males.

In my experience, the women are also more likely to quit these professions once they realize the hassles and downsides. Being out in the weather or away from home are serious downsides that guys just have to take in stride to pay the bills. The gals, in my experience, will if they have to, but at the first opportunity they head for something easier. This is not all-inclusive, there are guys that look for desk jobs too. But it is very seldom I hear of a gal who truly, of her own volition, wants to be a truck driver or heavy equipment operator, or frankly any other seriously grudging, challenging, back-breaking labor.

Or social conditioning again? The women are intelligent enough not to endure bad working conditions, but men tough it out to prove they are macho men. It's not the bills. Women have bills to pay too.

I'm sorry, but I have to vehemently disagree with this. It is an imaginary concoction. I know a lot of guys who would trade their jobs for these "pink collar" imaginations in a heart beat; better pay, air-conditioning, flex time, etc., etc. etc.

But you are only looking at the cushy end of the pink collar ghetto. Go to the electronics and computer chip factories, to the textile sweatshops, or follow a home-care worker on her rounds. There are lots of joe jobs done primarily by women, and for the most part at lower pay scales than those men do.

Where I think your argument is valid is where two people, a male and a female, both work the exact same job. That is where pay discrepency manifests, and in that you are correct. But to imagine that women could, or would, aspire to any profession automatically ("naturally"), is just not borne out by the reality of my experience.

Of course it's not. It is not anybody's experience. Because we live and have lived for centuries in a patriarchal society which distorts people's natural individual aspirations and limits them to what is acceptable for their gender.

We have opened up in a few ways, but its only baby steps so far.

Heck, I know some women who couldn't be dragged kicking and screaming to a job, that's what husbands (epecially ex's) are for. Of course, one could argue there are men who won't work either. Yes, but try finding an alimony settlement where she pays him to sit on his butt.

Part of the patriarchal assumptions, again, right? The man is supposed to be the breadwinner and support his wife and ex-wife too. As long as that assumption holds, the law will reflect it. Change the assumption and the law will change too.

And remember, for every woman getting alimony from an ex there are likely two or three others who get nothing in alimony or child support either, but have to support themselves with no help. I don't have exact statistics on that, but I do know that even with alimony, most women are poorer after a separation or divorce while most men are financially better off.

Ah, but this dodges the point. I always hear of contesting the icing, the "prestige" jobs, what is wrong with contesting the crumbs, the "joe jobs?"

Oh, this is very much the point. Sure the focus has been on the prestige jobs. Joe jobs exist for both genders. No one wants to do any of them, and they are done out of necessity because one can't get anything better.

Women are breaking out of the pink ghetto joe jobs into both the male joe jobs and the male prestige jobs.

Now, if men want to take on traditional female jobs, there are plenty of them at the low-end of the income scale--and many require just as much back-breaking labour as traditional male jobs do.

But where can men find new fields of opportunity in prestige jobs dominated traditionally by women?

Can you name as many as three?

I will note a couple of things tho', for instance, with the legal paranoia that exists in our society, why should a man in his right mind want to be a kindergarten teacher or serve in child-care?

And wouldn't it be great if he could teach kindergarten or work in child-care without such a cloud of suspicion hanging over him? Wouldn't it be great if children, especially boys, had good male role models from an early age? Maybe if we made it acceptable for men to hold such positions, we would prevent the development of molesters.

How come women don't want male midwives or obstetrics nurses?

No one is saying there are no relevant differences between men and women. As for pregancy, breastfeeding and child-care, clearly there are again concessions that do need to be made on the basis of gender. Most women can work through most of their pregnancy, but in some cases may need to be transferred away from a task that exposes them and the fetus to dangerous conditions (e.g. chemicals). A maternity leave is essential; a minimum of 6 months would be my standard to allow for ample breastfeeding before introducing solid food. But work could resume before then if arrangements are made for breastfeeding while the mother is at work. Some forward-looking companies now provide child care on the premises. And child care can be shared by both parents with the expansion of paternity leave--say for the six months (at least) after Mum returns to work.

Many European countries provide for two years of maternity/paternity leave. It is a norm I would like to see introduced to North America, and eventually world-wide.