Avoiding the real issues
I love dual-meaning subject headers.
I just want to make clear, because it's been a bit of a theme in the comments so far, that yes, I agree that currently-observed differences in number of men and women in, for example, science and engineering, are largely due to systematic differences in how boys and girls are socialised and educated.
However, I'm not planning to tackle that issue in this series.
Firstly, there are heaps of other people addressing that sort of thing, doing research on it, and explaining it to the world at large. Secondly, those people are psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, I imagine educators - and I'm not. I'm an evolutionary geneticist.
The project of both understanding socialised gender differences and sexism, and then perhaps addressing and changing what can be changed, is a very large one and needs lots of participants all making their contribution. Ultimately, I think it will help us understand what being human really means, and I think the two projects must inevitably be entwined.
So, I look at the current state of play and ask "What can I contribute?". Well, it's a common theme in justifications by white men for why sexism isn't so bad, we can all relax and stop harassing them to change - that there are genetic/innate differences between men and women, and that what we're seeing in society reflects that, and not socialisation and education. These genetic/innate differences are often given (pseudo-)evolutionary justifications.
Now that's something I can make an informed, educated contribution to. And that's what I want to do here. I'd like others who are interested in sexism (particularly in science and engineering) to not feel cowed when someone who knows only marginally more genetics and evolution than they do, claims that there are innate, unchangable and inevitable reasons for more male scientists and engineers.
The other real issue I'm avoiding is trying to explain why I didn't do my homework for the course I'm attending today, because I was busy on the internets instead.
Admin note: I'm screening comments from non-friends as well as anonymous. If you're not on my flist but interested in this, please don't feel intimidated into not participating - I will unscreen as fast as I can (given courses I have to attend, and noting that I'm in Australia and I may be asleep when you're posting). You may also find yourself on my flist as a result :-).
I just want to make clear, because it's been a bit of a theme in the comments so far, that yes, I agree that currently-observed differences in number of men and women in, for example, science and engineering, are largely due to systematic differences in how boys and girls are socialised and educated.
However, I'm not planning to tackle that issue in this series.
Firstly, there are heaps of other people addressing that sort of thing, doing research on it, and explaining it to the world at large. Secondly, those people are psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, I imagine educators - and I'm not. I'm an evolutionary geneticist.
The project of both understanding socialised gender differences and sexism, and then perhaps addressing and changing what can be changed, is a very large one and needs lots of participants all making their contribution. Ultimately, I think it will help us understand what being human really means, and I think the two projects must inevitably be entwined.
So, I look at the current state of play and ask "What can I contribute?". Well, it's a common theme in justifications by white men for why sexism isn't so bad, we can all relax and stop harassing them to change - that there are genetic/innate differences between men and women, and that what we're seeing in society reflects that, and not socialisation and education. These genetic/innate differences are often given (pseudo-)evolutionary justifications.
Now that's something I can make an informed, educated contribution to. And that's what I want to do here. I'd like others who are interested in sexism (particularly in science and engineering) to not feel cowed when someone who knows only marginally more genetics and evolution than they do, claims that there are innate, unchangable and inevitable reasons for more male scientists and engineers.
The other real issue I'm avoiding is trying to explain why I didn't do my homework for the course I'm attending today, because I was busy on the internets instead.
Admin note: I'm screening comments from non-friends as well as anonymous. If you're not on my flist but interested in this, please don't feel intimidated into not participating - I will unscreen as fast as I can (given courses I have to attend, and noting that I'm in Australia and I may be asleep when you're posting). You may also find yourself on my flist as a result :-).
