Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: LesPalenik on July 02, 2019, 04:47:43 am
-
Female teachers are badly wanted at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, Netherlands. Not only the male candidates are disqualified, but the hired women will receive a bonus starter gift of an extra €100,000. In early seventies, I spent a few months at Philips Computers unit in Eindhoven with many engineers coming from that University and they seemed reasonably well adjusted and fully qualified for their positions, despite being taught mainly by male professors.
For the next 18 months, all academic jobs at Eindhoven University of Technology will be open to female candidates only in an effort to improve the balance between men and women on the permanent staff.
Female newcomers will also be given an extra starter package, including €100,000 which they can use for their own research and a special mentoring programme, the university said.
150 times €100,000 comes to 15 milllion euros which could be used for better things than the totally unnecessary perks for the new female recruits. I wouldn't expect any increase in quality of the graduates.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/06/eindhoven-university-opens-academic-jobs-to-women-only/
-
All because those women libbers of the 70s decided that bringing up the next generation was only for useless women. So there you are, folks, your grannies were clearly ignorant idiots, as were many of your mothers.
Not only is it today politically correct nonsense gone mad, but social engineering too. The lunatics really are running much of the show; guess that's progressive.
Rob
-
Equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity. Easy to support the latter, the former requires ludicrous levels of social intervention and is a recipe for disaster.
-
In Canada, in 2015, the Liberal party won a majority and when Justin Trudeau started to govern in late 2015, his first act was to establish "equality" in government. Not by merit, but by numbers.
The 42nd Canadian Parliament includes a record number of female Members of Parliament, with 88 women elected to the 338-member House of Commons of Canada (26%) in the 2015 election. This represents a gain of twelve seats over the previous record of 76 women. That however was not enough for Trudeau. In November 2015, he proudly announced that because it was 2015, a new era, the new cabinet would include 15 men and 15 women. 15 men out of 250 men (6% representation) and 15 women out of 88 women (17% representation). In other words, the women were 3 times overrepresented compared to men.
Although some of the chosen women proved to be very capable, as one would expect, there were also some duds, and some of those duds contributed to Trudeau's downfall. And consequently, right now it looks like voter's euphoria with Trudeau and Liberals has faded and that party won't be reelected again.
-
That's always the problem. People have to rise by their own work or it doesn't, well, work out too well.
I suppose it's also the perennial problem with nepotism. However folks defend it in governement, having the royal ear is not enough: you have to be able to feed that ear good advice based on experience and real, broad understanding of your subject. It doesn't come from all-expenses-paid trips to multi-course dinners under a tent! Unless, of couse, we are speaking about the experience of defending yourself against mosquitoes.
Long term ambassadors do get to know the movers and shakers. It's a failing of some countries to throw out experienced people on change of party in power. A well-established member of the civil service can develop contacts that no new "now you see him, now you don't" political appointee ever does, especially in the world where things are not cast in the Western mould. It's people in power not getting that point that creates much international damage. Startiing everthing over again from step 1 is as fustrating for the others, as is a loss of experienced heads a geat disadvantage in lost contunuity for the new government taking over.
-
All because those women libbers of the 70s decided that bringing up the next generation was only for useless women. So there you are, folks, your grannies were clearly ignorant idiots, as were many of your mothers.
Rob
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT6cB6vMWYU
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT6cB6vMWYU
Really funny link! The graphics are brilliant - and the characterisations pitch-perfect.
Rob
-
Female teachers are badly wanted at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, Netherlands. Not only the male candidates are disqualified, but the hired women will receive a bonus starter gift of an extra €100,000. In early seventies, I spent a few months at Philips Computers unit in Eindhoven with many engineers coming from that University and they seemed reasonably well adjusted and fully qualified for their positions, despite being taught mainly by male professors.
150 times €100,000 comes to 15 milllion euros which could be used for better things than the totally unnecessary perks for the new female recruits. I wouldn't expect any increase in quality of the graduates.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/06/eindhoven-university-opens-academic-jobs-to-women-only/
I doubt this will do anything, which I think you tend to agree with.
Men tend to be more interested in things, while woman tend to be more interested in people. The separation at the mean is a standard deviation for each interest when comparing men vs. women. However, it is not the average person (or those only averagely interested) that really go into these fields. It is the people at the extreme end, those who are very interested.
If you take two bell curves, say one for men and one for women, and skew them slightly, although the difference at the mean will be little, the differences at the extremes will be much more.
So for instance, with interest in things, the male curve will be slightly more to the right. Although the difference of the area under the curve in the middle is not that great, the difference between the area under the curve at the extreme right side will be massive. There will be a greater area under the men's curve than the women's curve from the same point to infinity.
This is why many more men choose to go into programming and engineering. Likewise, the same thing happens, but in reverse, with interest in people, and that is why many more women go into the social fields like nursing.
This whole progressive movement to try and get more female engineers is completely ignoring the fact that women and men are different, inherently. It is not a social construct but due to hormonal differences. It will never be 50/50 in the engineering field, or in nursing field either.
-
Well, there will come a time, when some of the male students will get fed up with the incompetency of teachers parachuted to their schools based on equality of sex or color.
At such time they might rather join the army or become monks. Which would be a pity.
-
Well, there will come a time, when some of the male students will get fed up with the incompetency of teachers parachuted to their schools based on equality of sex or color.
At such time they might rather join the army or become monks. Which would be a pity.
They could always join LuLa.
-
I doubt this will do anything, which I think you tend to agree with.
Men tend to be more interested in things, while woman tend to be more interested in people. The separation at the mean is a standard deviation for each interest when comparing men vs. women. However, it is not the average person (or the average interests) that really go into these fields. It is the people at the extreme end, those who are very interested.
If you take two bell curves, say one for men and one for women, and skew them slightly, although the difference at the mean will be little, the differences at the extremes will be much more.
So for instance, with interest in things, the male curve will be slightly more to the left. Although the difference of the area under the curve in the middle is not that great, the difference between the area under the curve at the extreme left side will be massive. There will be a greater area under the men's curve than the women's curve from the same point to infinity.
This is why many more men choose to go into programming and engineering. Likewise, the same thing happens, but in reverse, with interest in people, and that is why many more women go into the social fields like nursing.
This whole progressive movement to try and get more female engineers is completely ignoring the fact that women and men are different, inherently. It is not a social construct but due to hormonal differences. It will never be 50/50 in the engineering field, or in nursing field either.
Joe, I think you should post this on your photog site.
-
Joe, I think you should post this on your photog site.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic because you agree with me or because you are a progressive that thinks the difference between men and women are purely a social construct? ???
Care to clarify?
Also, note I never said women should not be engineers nor that men should never be nurses. Only that many more men are interested in becoming engineers and many more women are interested in becoming nurses.
If the later, I would advise you that there have been loads and loads of psychological research done on this field that nearly all disagree with the progressives. The most interesting is the study on how boys vs. girls play in pre-school and how they handle conflicts.
-
Joe, I think you should post this on your photog site.
Here is a better written blog post then I could with drawings that shows what I was trying to explain when talking about bell curves. In the post, the author shows how two bell curves only slightly off at the mean can have really big differences at the extreme, and it is at the extreme where the exceptional individuals come from. He also talks about a fat tail dynamic, which makes the bell curve for traits less normal, but still susceptible to differences on the extremes.
On the real possibility of human differences (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/11/on-the-real-possibility-of-human-differences/#.XRtoYS2ZOL9)
I found this using a quick Google search, and only posting it because the diagrams show the differences in the bell curves a lot better that trying to explain them. The rest of the article, although interesting, is not something I necessarily completely agree with.
-
One needs to remember that there was a large history of sexism in employment in the US until the mid-1970s when equal opportunity began to be widely adapted. In WWII there was a large employment of women in various manufacturing industries because men were drafted to fight and there was a need for workers to build planes, tanks, etc. My mother worked in the aircraft industry after graduating from college in 1944. Her employment ceased the day after the peace treaty was signed with Japan ending the hostilities. the same happened to many other women and it was routine for returning soldiers to take their jobs back. For the most part women were consigned to clerical, teaching, and nursing careers from 1945 to about 1975. there were also anti-nepotism regulations that prohibited a husband and wife from holding teaching positions at most universities. One of the lone exceptions were government research facilities which did not have such prohibitions.
Certainly there are more women pursuing STEM careers than was common forty years ago. I think I saw a statistic that there is almost a 50-50 mix in medical school enrollment now. As long as there is equal opportunity things will pretty much even out over the long run. I think there still tends to be a bias against the hiring of women in certain STEM fields. the same thing existed at philharmonic orchestras until they moved to doing blind auditions where the musician was not seen by the listeners. Many more women succeeded in this manner.
-
Not sure if you're being sarcastic because you agree with me or because you are a progressive that thinks the difference between men and women are purely a social construct? ???
Care to clarify?
Also, note I never said women should not be engineers nor that men should never be nurses. Only that many more men are interested in becoming engineers and many more women are interested in becoming nurses.
If the later, I would advise you that there have been loads and loads of psychological research done on this field that nearly all disagree with the progressives. The most interesting is the study on how boys vs. girls play in pre-school and how they handle conflicts.
I disagree with your logic.
But I was joking in suggesting the posting of your comment. In these politically extreme times, that could be a career mistake.
Anyway, here's a thoughtful attempt at parsing the mountains of info on this subject. It uses the infamous anti-diversity memo written by the Google employee to discuss the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley:
http://theconversation.com/does-biology-explain-why-men-outnumber-women-in-tech-82479
-
One needs to remember that there was a large history of sexism in employment in the US until the mid-1970s when equal opportunity began to be widely adapted. In WWII there was a large employment of women in various manufacturing industries because men were drafted to fight and there was a need for workers to build planes, tanks, etc. My mother worked in the aircraft industry after graduating from college in 1944. Her employment ceased the day after the peace treaty was signed with Japan ending the hostilities. the same happened to many other women and it was routine for returning soldiers to take their jobs back. For the most part women were consigned to clerical, teaching, and nursing careers from 1945 to about 1975. there were also anti-nepotism regulations that prohibited a husband and wife from holding teaching positions at most universities. One of the lone exceptions were government research facilities which did not have such prohibitions.
Certainly there are more women pursuing STEM careers than was common forty years ago. I think I saw a statistic that there is almost a 50-50 mix in medical school enrollment now. As long as there is equal opportunity things will pretty much even out over the long run. I think there still tends to be a bias against the hiring of women in certain STEM fields. the same thing existed at philharmonic orchestras until they moved to doing blind auditions where the musician was not seen by the listeners. Many more women succeeded in this manner.
I agree with the first paragraph here, and that allowing equality of opportunity is very important.
However, I just don't see a 50/50 split eventually manifesting itself in every field.
Although men and women are technically split in the STEM fields currently in college, like what you mentioned in regards to the medical field, the devil is in the details. (See below to first diagram posted. I choose not to post the article since the author was using this data to support his confirmation bias.)
As you can see, the ratio is about 50/50 overall, but look at engineering and math/computer sciences. These are very high paying fields, but currently many more men choose to study those fields. So the real question is what causes these differences in preferences to manifest themselves in high school (the time when someone decides what to study)? Ability is certainly not it, since girls tend to do better in math then boys in middle school and high school? So it really has to come down to differences in interests. Could it be today that some inherent bias in counselors in high school steer girls away from those subjects? In decades past, maybe, but in the politically correct world of today, I doubt it.
So there is something else at work, and more then likely it is a combination of many things, of which biological differences in gender interests is one of them.
The medical part of the chart I find rather interesting and surprising, and since you brought it up, lets look at that. Clearly it shows many more women studying within that field then men, but what is the break down into subfields. Studying to be a doctor and a nurse are both included in this number, but what is the ratio of male vs. female doctors and male vs. female nurses? It is hard to find the break down of those currently studying to become a nurse, but of working nurses, 91% are female. Since this number will contain nurses from many generations, one can argue that it is skewed high due to previous gender biases. With that said, the study I got this data from found no significant statistical differences in the data for the last 15 years. It has been at the 91% amount for a while now, so one could also argue the trend has plateaued. This means that even though we have been trying to encourage more men to enter nursing, 9% (perhaps 10% will squeak through in a decade) may be the best we can hope for.
For doctors too, the research initially shows a strong bias towards women. 60% of all doctors under 35 are female. However, what about the specialities? Looking at just residencies women were higher in the following: Obstetric & Gynecology (83%), Pediatric (73%), Allergy & Immunology (70%), Medical Genetics (67%) and Dermatology (64%). However, nearly all residencies for surgery are male dominated; Orthopedic Surgery (85% male), Neurological Surgery (82.5%), Thoracic Surgery (73.8%), Vascular Surgery (67%), Plastic Surgery (62%).
Admittedly, burn out tends to effect more female doctors then male, and this could be a gender bias issue within the industry. However, this more then likely would not come into play when a medical student decides on what speciality to study.
So what causes this?
Personally, I don't really see an issue with how the specialities in medical school break down. It still feels like a good fair split overall. However, surgeons tends to make more (I think) or at least get better press, so obviously for the social justice warriors, the fact that women make up a higher percentage in other fields is meaningless.
-
... Not only the male candidates are disqualified, but the hired women will receive a bonus starter gift of an extra €100,000...
150 times €100,000 comes to 15 milllion euros which could be used for better things than the totally unnecessary perks for the new female recruits. ..
Just another display of the total idiocy by the left.
-
Just another display of the total idiocy by the left.
Are you sure it's not Muslims to blame? Can't be too careful!
-
Are you sure it's not Muslims to blame? Can't be too careful!
Are you disputing this comes from the left?
-
I disagree with your logic.
But I was joking in suggesting the posting of your comment. In these politically extreme times, that could be a career mistake.
Anyway, here's a thoughtful attempt at parsing the mountains of info on this subject. It uses the infamous anti-diversity memo written by the Google employee to discuss the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley:
http://theconversation.com/does-biology-explain-why-men-outnumber-women-in-tech-82479
Interesting article and I don't have time to read it fully now. However, with a quick skim it seems to support my opinion up a degree.
It does note the biological difference between males and females due to hormonal differences. It also implies the idea that over lapping bell curves off by only a little at the mean can have large effects on the extremes.
The article does also list nurture causes in differences as well, and I think the most important line in the article is"
"Many pundits make the mistake of assuming that scientific evidence favoring sociocultural causes for the dearth of women in tech invalidates biological causes, or vice versa. These assumptions are far too simplistic because most complex human behaviors reflect some mix of nature and nurture."
My point is that even if we equalize all of the sociological differences in how we raise girls and boys, essentially canceling the differences out, biological differences will still be present and prevent a 50/50 split from developing in many fields.
-
... My point is that even if we equalize all of the sociological differences in how we raise girls and boys, essentially canceling the differences out, biological differences will still be present and prevent a 50/50 split from developing in many fields.
You sexist, misogynist, you! ;D
-
You sexist, misogynist, you! ;D
Don't forget a self-hating misandrist, since I seem to have no issue with the large amount of female nurses either. ;)
-
Are you disputing this comes from the left?
I'm quite sure it comes from what you would regard as "the left".
-
Female teachers are badly wanted at the University of Technology in Eindhoven, Netherlands. Not only the male candidates are disqualified, but the hired women will receive a bonus starter gift of an extra €100,000. In early seventies, I spent a few months at Philips Computers unit in Eindhoven with many engineers coming from that University and they seemed reasonably well adjusted and fully qualified for their positions, despite being taught mainly by male professors.
150 times €100,000 comes to 15 milllion euros which could be used for better things than the totally unnecessary perks for the new female recruits. I wouldn't expect any increase in quality of the graduates.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/06/eindhoven-university-opens-academic-jobs-to-women-only/
I also have to wonder what effect this will have on the male professors.
Most don't like getting paid less than someone who is not as qualified, regardless of gender. If male professors realize they make less than their female counterparts just because they are a male, I cant see many of them accepting this.
Could this cause the most qualified male professors to move on?
-
Many universities are already staffed with teachers of questionable quality or clueless about the real world.
-
And it's been that way for a while, Les. My mother was a high school English teacher and she watched the gradual decline in the quality of people who were coming into the profession.
-
For doctors too, the research initially shows a strong bias towards women. 60% of all doctors under 35 are female. However, what about the specialities? Looking at just residencies women were higher in the following: Obstetric & Gynecology (83%), Pediatric (73%), Allergy & Immunology (70%), Medical Genetics (67%) and Dermatology (64%). However, nearly all residencies for surgery are male dominated; Orthopedic Surgery (85% male), Neurological Surgery (82.5%), Thoracic Surgery (73.8%), Vascular Surgery (67%), Plastic Surgery (62%).
I have seen two plastic surgeons in the past three years, both women, a female urologist, and a Mohs dermatology surgeon also a women. Dermatology can be misleading as it also includes the subspecialty of Mohs surgery (I think). The key point is that the prerequisites for getting into medical school require lots of science courses.
-
I have seen two plastic surgeons in the past three years, both women, a female urologist, and a Mohs dermatology surgeon also a women. Dermatology can be misleading as it also includes the subspecialty of Mohs surgery (I think). The key point is that the prerequisites for getting into medical school require lots of science courses.
Well the statistic don't completely cancel out female surgeons. They just show still more men choose to study those fields of medicine.
-
Well the statistic don't completely cancel out female surgeons. They just show still more men choose to study those fields of medicine.
While true, I suspect the absolute numbers are small given some specialties such as vascular and thoracic surgery have limited patient populations relative to orthopedics and non-surgical specialties. In addition OB-GYN has a heavy emphasis on surgery that should not be overlooked (as does some ENT work).
-
I have seen two plastic surgeons in the past three years, both women, a female urologist, and a Mohs dermatology surgeon also a women. Dermatology can be misleading as it also includes the subspecialty of Mohs surgery (I think). The key point is that the prerequisites for getting into medical school require lots of science courses.
Do you understand what Mohs surgery is, Alan? It's straight dermatology. What's different is that the surgeon takes off a very small slice at a time and examines it to see if the cancer has been removed with that bit. If not, another cut is made. If you're lucky, as I was with my ear that was exposed to thousands of miles of sun on a road bike, the first cut gets the job done.
-
My point is that even if we equalize all of the sociological differences in how we raise girls and boys, essentially canceling the differences out, biological differences will still be present and prevent a 50/50 split from developing in many fields.
No. You are assuming an innate inability to control who we are. What we are does not dictate who we can be. It is an artificial social construct that imposes limitations, which unsurprisingly have benefited men.
The biological differences of humans has been used to support bigotry and discrimination, nothing new there. But while obviously wrong, it is also ridiculously F^&$#)(*G boring.
PS. I guarantee you that if a “woman’s field”* of work were to become insanely profitable, men would want in, even with our “biological incompatibility.”
*For the jokers, let’s leave out birthing. ::)
-
Well the statistic don't completely cancel out female surgeons. They just show still more men choose to study those fields of medicine.
According to my granddaughter, who enjoyed attending surgery whilst a student, the principal problem with women and surgery is that it is a de facto male preserve that is jealously guarded. You don't just walk into it because you want to do it; there is also a deep-seated need to obtain keys.
There seems to be a rather higher intake of women into dermatology for one simple reason, possibly divisible into two: you are highly unlikely to run into crisis calls, which gives more available time for the responsibilities of motherhood. Women will still produce the babies (and probably the nannies), the hell with the fantasies of the LGBT crowd.
Regarding the proportion of male/female medical students: watching my granddaughter's graduation ceremony video, the women appeared to outnumber the men, and a massive proportion was Chinese, and this in Scotland. Perhaps there appeared to be more women because many looked pretty damned attractive, which may have coloured my mathematical enthusiasm for figures.
Rob
-
No. You are assuming an innate inability to control who we are. What we are does not dictate who we can be. It is an artificial social construct that imposes limitations, which unsurprisingly have benefited men.
The biological differences of humans has been used to support bigotry and discrimination, nothing new there. But while obviously wrong, it is also ridiculously F^&$#)(*G boring.
PS. I guarantee you that if a “woman’s field”* of work were to become insanely profitable, men would want in, even with our “biological incompatibility.”
*For the jokers, let’s leave out birthing. ::)
Nope, you got this all wrong.
Sure, a person can overcome his or her biological traits. What a single person is will not necessarily dictate who they become, which is why I have been very careful to talk about populations here and not persons. However, from a mass population perspective (what statistics really looks at), this is just not the case. Biological differences do have effects, and some people within a mass will succumb to them, thus effecting the overall average. This is unavoidable with the masses, which take into account all persons, those whom have overcome and those whom simply don't care too.
Even the article you provided explained as much. It specifically said that reasons why less women are in tech is due to both nature and nurture, and that for anyone on the left or right to assume it is only one of them is foolish. The problem with what you are suggesting is that we can somehow control for both.
Perhaps we can decrease the social nurturing that effects the outcome, but since we can not stop nature (and since nature is also part of the equation), the disparities are not something we can fully eliminate since many individuals will choose to live with those inherently different traits and not be bothered by them. Even with recognizing this fact, do you really think many are going to care? Do you really think the average man is going to change his interests just to fight against his biology and work in an industry he is not really interested in for the sake of social progress? And do you really want a male nurse serving you who is not fully interested in his job and just doing it for social progress?
Sorry, I don't really care the gender of any nurse that serves me, I just want them to be really interested in helping me.
I mean really, if men (lets use men since I guess it's more justified to be sexist against men by how you are acting) are biologically less interested in people, and this is part of the reason why they dont go into nursing, how do we overcome this? How, please tell, do we get the entire population of men to suddenly be more interested in working with people?
Furthermore, I am not advocating using these differences to "support bigotry and discrimination;" this is your inherent liberal bias against conservatives and your inability to think logical without completely removing your emotions that is causing you to believe I believe in this interpretation of what I wrote. I am only pointing out the causes of such disparities, and admitting it is part nature and nurture. Extrapolating the reasons for these disparities to justify bigotry is a totally different line of thought and not one I am advocating.
Last, women are not forced into lower paying jobs because we feel that is where they should be. It is simply the case that women choose to work more with people, and you can only work with so many people at the same time. Think of a nurse, how many persons can she care for at once? Not many, which is why her salary is not terribly high. However, an engineer can serve many 1000s with his work all at once. Although the amount he can get from each is significantly smaller, the shear number of people an engineer can serve multiplies this amount to being a much higher value.
There is no multiplier effect when working directly with people, and that is why the social sciences pay much less. It will always be this way.
-
What biological traits in women skew them away from entering into STEM fields?
-
What biological traits in women skew them away from entering into STEM fields?
There is a fair amount of research that shows the average man tends to be more interested in inanimate objects by about one standard deviation. Likewise, the same research also shows woman tend to be more interested in people by about a standard deviation.
If you are going to spend all day working on just objects (like in engineering and tech jobs), stands to reason you better really like doing it. (And dont we tell people to do what they enjoy?) Same thing with nursing; if you're going to spend all day caring for people you better really like people. Now this is not to say women should not go into tech or not be interested, I am just merely pointing out the very real biological difference that is partly to blame for the disparity.
Although a standard deviation is not huge, the average person is not whom goes into a field, often. It are those at the extremes, and even a small difference in overlapping distributions can have a huge effect at the extremes. See below.
So, one standard deviation (on the average) of difference does not come close to explaining the differences between men and women in fields, regardless of which gender is dominant. And being such, this is often used as a reason why such differences exist can only be socially constructed. The differences in the average is much less then the real life difference, so some type of prejudice must be present or that is the thinking.
However, if you realize that the action is on the extreme ends and also know that a small difference can cause a huge disparity at the extreme, the disparities start to make more sense from a biological perspective.
-
There is a fair amount of research that shows the average man tends to be more interested in inanimate objects by about one standard deviation. Likewise, the same research also shows woman tend to be more interested in people by about a standard deviation.
And to what biological process is that discrepancy attributed.
-
And to what biological process is that discrepancy attributed.
The introduction of an increase in testosterone during fetal development.
We all start off female, but those predisposed to become male, receive extra testosterone in week 9, causing the body to develop into a male. This does not just effect physical characteristics, but also mental ones too. Many studies have been completed on just born babies showing differences exist between the genders. Since it is too early for any type of social constructs to take hold yet, this points to it being a biological difference.
Furthering the theory, there is a syndrome (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) where sometimes a female fetus is exposed to a greater level of testosterone during development then what is normal, but a little later on then 9 weeks. This has the effect of giving the female more male like characteristics, and by how much is directly related to how much additional exposure to testosterone she was exposed to above the normal amount.
Lastly, a transgender going through hormone therapy, whether from male to female or vis versa, has measurable differences in mode and certain mental characteristics due to changes in the hormones. This too points to there being a real biological difference between men and women beyond just the physical level.
-
The introduction of an increase in testosterone during fetal development.
So if I understand you correctly, the introduction of an increase in testosterone causes a fetus to be more interested in inanimate objects. I wonder how they established that link on a biological level.
-
So if I understand you correctly, the introduction of an increase in testosterone causes a fetus to be more interested in inanimate objects.
Yes, and it is complicated to say the least. I also feel like you are purposely trying to bait me into a situation or just bait me to look crazy, so I need to state that everything I am talking about has to deal with average populations, not individuals. Or I could just be a little overly concerned/crazy with discussing this since it is so easy for someone to allow their emotions to misinterpret what I said.
The is a very real difference in brain development when testosterone is introduced. This has been researched, and it is present in both boys and girls who get additional testosterone above normal during fetal development. One net effect is a slightly greater interest in objects over people. Keep in mind, it is a slight difference amongst the average.
It is not like you can go to NYC and start interviewing people off of the street and find this incredible difference between men and women. You may notice it, assuming you engineered your questions correctly, but it will not be great enough to make sense, at first. But, like in the graphs I shown before, a slight difference will cause a many times magnified difference at the extremes. And it is at the extremes where the action happens.
Another example is aggression. Although you may be looking at the above and thinking an increase in testosterone will trigger a slightly greater increase in interest in objects as crazy, you probably would certainly agree that an increase in testosterone will increase aggression. (If you are thinking this, why is one crazy and the other not?) It is true, boys are more aggressive then girls, but only by a small amount on average. It is not some great difference that men are many times more aggressive then women. However, the action is on the extremes and a small difference on the average produces a big effect at the ends of the graph. This is why most murderers are men. Are there some women who murder, yes, but many more men.
The difference between men and women in aggression is not that much on average, not nearly enough to explain the difference in how many men murder vs women. But it is not the average person who murders; it is the most aggressive persons who do, who happen to be at the extreme.
More men deal with substance abuse. There is research that more testosterone, and the later puberty onset, causes this. Another difference.
Fetal Testosterone May Program Boys' Behavior (https://www.livescience.com/24540-fetal-testosterone-boys-impulsivity.html) This deals with impulsive behavior and substance abuse.
I wonder how they established that link on a biological level.
One example
Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/) This discusses the Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) (when excessive levels of testosterone are introduced during development) and the effects it have on interests of objects vs people.
Abstract for above research article: "There is considerable interest in understanding women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Career choices have been shown to be driven in part by interests, and gender differences in those interests have generally been considered to result from socialization. We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through psychological orientation to Things versus People. We examined this question in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings (total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure. Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People."
-
If what you say is correct, then I think we could expect to see occupational differences in men and women up to one standard deviation. Yet the differences appear to be much greater, which may mean that something else is at play.
-
If what you say is correct, then I think we could expect to see occupational differences in men and women up to one standard deviation. Yet the differences appear to be much greater, which may mean that something else is at play.
Okay, you are missing the point of the graphs I have been showing and talking about.
Yes, the difference amongst the average man vs the average woman is small and not as much as actually exists in occupations. However, it is not the average person who often goes into these careers, it is the most interested person.
Look at the graphs below, they are only off by a little bit. However, at the far right side, the area under the blue graph is significantly more then the area under the red graph from the same point on the scale. (Note not two different corresponding points on each curve, but from the same exact location.) Even though the difference is minimal overall, the difference at that extreme is extremely large.
This is what accounts for the difference; the area under the extremes of the curves.
The difference in averages is measured directly since it is by far the easiest to do so directly. But the extremes is where the real interest is. (Sort of like how altimeters don't actually measure altitude but barometric pressure and use the relationship between the two to determine altitude, which would be much harder to measure directly.)
Think of it this way, the average difference is what we are measuring, which would be those people in the middle of the graph. Yes, it's not really off by a lot, but it is not those people, in the middle, who are interested enough to become engineers. It are those at the far right side who are interested enough to go into that field of study. For this field the red curve would be women and the blue man. As you can see, there are certainly women at that end with enough interest to want to become engineers. However, there are significantly more men (area under curve is greater by a lot), many times more then the difference in the overall average, and this is what explains the disparity, not the average.
-
Okay, you are missing the point of the graphs I have been showing and talking about.
So, do you think the only factor in the discrepancy between men and women among the occupations is biological.
-
So, do you think the only factor in the discrepancy between men and women among the occupations is biological.
No, there are other forces at play and a combination of many that create these differences.
I would foolish to assume that there are not misogynistic men of power who hold back women in the STEM fields. Just like it would be foolish to assume there are not misandrogynistic women of power who hold men back in say nursing.
Then you also have to throw in competition and aggression, the fact that women more often then men take off for child rearing (another controversial but true fact, and not that I am advocating this just pointing out this is what happens), and a whole host of other reasons.
So certainly many things account for occupational differences. Looking at these difference in occupation is always going to be complicated and it will be impossible to determine which is more important, directly. (We should also try and minimize all of the non-biological items (as best we can) that effect outcomes and discourage people, becoming less sexist.)
However, just like altimeters indirectly measure altitude, I think looking at differences in fields of study at universities can give us a good idea of what are the main causes. Choice of study is not going to be effected by another's prejudice (like employment or being promoted), people don't compete in their choice of major (yes, when studying they do, but not in choosing what to study) children and child rearing are not an issue yet, etc. So a lot of these issues are cancelled out. Whats left, biology and child socialization.
Regardless of the liberal or conservative socialization of a culture, large difference in choice of field of study exist. So, biological differences play a large part.
-
I can't understand how anyone who has been a child at a co-ed school has difficulty understanding the differences between genders, and no, not just standing up to pee.
The thing works the opposite way round: people who claim not to be able to accept the evidence of their own eyes and experiences are the ones I believe have the problem.
To that, I'd add: anyone who has had both a son and daughter has few doubts about which is which.
-
Regardless of the liberal or conservative socialization of a culture, large difference in choice of field of study exist. So, biological differences play a large part.
Do you think they play a larger part than sociological influences?
-
Nope, you got this all wrong.
Sure, a person can overcome his or her biological traits. What a single person is will not necessarily dictate who they become, which is why I have been very careful to talk about populations here and not persons. However, from a mass population perspective (what statistics really looks at), this is just not the case. Biological differences do have effects, and some people within a mass will succumb to them, thus effecting the overall average. This is unavoidable with the masses, which take into account all persons, those whom have overcome and those whom simply don't care too.
I don't know how else to insert within your post so I'm using the quote thing.
You are not taking into account the considerable pressure that most people feel to abide by society's norms, both past and to a lesser degree present. Prenatal testosterone levels are a tiny influence that are easily managed, one way or the other, by more formidable postnatal influences. How else to explain the explosion within "the masses" of women who strongly reject the past expectancy of a deferential female.
Since you've quoted from the article I suggested, then I guess I should too:
Regardless of whether nature or nurture is more powerful for explaining the lack of women in tech careers, people should guard against acting on the assumption of a gender binary. It makes more sense to treat individuals of both sexes as located somewhere on a continuum of masculine and feminine interests and abilities. Treating people as individuals rather than merely stereotyping them as male or female is difficult, given how quickly our automatic stereotypes kick in. But working toward this goal would foster equity and diversity in tech and other sectors of the economy.
Even the article you provided explained as much. It specifically said that reasons why less women are in tech is due to both nature and nurture, and that for anyone on the left or right to assume it is only one of them is foolish. The problem with what you are suggesting is that we can somehow control for both.
Perhaps we can decrease the social nurturing that effects the outcome, but since we can not stop nature (and since nature is also part of the equation), the disparities are not something we can fully eliminate since many individuals will choose to live with those inherently different traits and not be bothered by them. Even with recognizing this fact, do you really think many are going to care? Do you really think the average man is going to change his interests just to fight against his biology and work in an industry he is not really interested in for the sake of social progress? And do you really want a male nurse serving you who is not fully interested in his job and just doing it for social progress?
Sorry, I don't really care the gender of any nurse that serves me, I just want them to be really interested in helping me.
I mean really, if men (lets use men since I guess it's more justified to be sexist against men by how you are acting) are biologically less interested in people, and this is part of the reason why they dont go into nursing, how do we overcome this? How, please tell, do we get the entire population of men to suddenly be more interested in working with people?
Furthermore, I am not advocating using these differences to "support bigotry and discrimination;" this is your inherent liberal bias against conservatives and your inability to think logical without completely removing your emotions that is causing you to believe I believe in this interpretation of what I wrote. I am only pointing out the causes of such disparities, and admitting it is part nature and nurture. Extrapolating the reasons for these disparities to justify bigotry is a totally different line of thought and not one I am advocating.
Last, women are not forced into lower paying jobs because we feel that is where they should be. It is simply the case that women choose to work more with people, and you can only work with so many people at the same time. Think of a nurse, how many persons can she care for at once? Not many, which is why her salary is not terribly high. However, an engineer can serve many 1000s with his work all at once. Although the amount he can get from each is significantly smaller, the shear number of people an engineer can serve multiplies this amount to being a much higher value.
Now the above paragraph has to be bait. ::)
There is no multiplier effect when working directly with people, and that is why the social sciences pay much less. It will always be this way.
I'm done. Peace.
-
Do you think they play a larger part than sociological influences?
I do, but by how much I am not sure.
There has been no real research contrasting the two directly, primarily since it is such an abrasive and not so politically correct issue not to mention how would you do it? So many social science research relies on correlations without a control group, which is just the nature of the game. (This is unlike the study I posted that had a control group showing a causal relationship between hormones and interest in things vs. people.)
However, studies have been done in many different countries, all with varying degrees in the extent and length of time at which they have gone to make the sexes equal (all of which can be quantified), contrasting the occupational disparities, and those disparities are still very apparent in even the most liberal of societies. These are all correlational studies, not causal since you could not really do a causal study on this.
There is even evidence to suggest that if you compare countries (minus the one which are blatantly sexist like Saudi Arabia), at a certain middle point, where gender social biases have been very well mitigated, the disparities start to increase. So essentially, from the most repressive countries to some middle point, disparities decrease, but then, after that middle point, they start to increase again. The best explanation for these instances are biological. It could very well be that when a society becomes the most equal, the natural differences are free to manifest themselves more greatly?
Now I am not so sure as how well done or not these specific interpretations have been done, but they have come from liberal social scientists who would be bias in the other direction. I also find it hard to believe, even being a libertarian, and just relaying what I read.
With that said, I do believe at this point, where our society has evolved to be much less sexist then 50 years ago, biology has a greater cause to the differences than society. I would say sub-cultural (like difference between ethnicities and/or regions) socialization would be 2nd.
-
Regardless of whether nature or nurture is more powerful for explaining the lack of women in tech careers, people should guard against acting on the assumption of a gender binary. It makes more sense to treat individuals of both sexes as located somewhere on a continuum of masculine and feminine interests and abilities. Treating [persons] as individuals rather than merely stereotyping them as male or female is difficult, given how quickly our automatic stereotypes kick in. But working toward this goal would foster equity and diversity in tech and other sectors of the economy.
I'm done. Peace.
Oh my dear lord! Once again you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not advocating that we should act on the assumption of gender binary in our dealings with persons. And of course all persons are a combination of both masculine and feminine traits, and a person should be dealt as a person free of stereotypes.
But for you to ignore the basic fact that overall females are more feminine and that males are more masculine, even by slightly, is ignoring SCIENCE. To ignore that this could be a real reason on why people choose (THEMSELVES, NOT FORCED INTO) the professions they do, is also ignoring science.
The problem you are having is that you are completely incapable of thinking about this from a societal point of view, and not an individual one. You keep on thinking that I am insisting on judging a person based on population studies that cover a large group.
Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows this is not what I am doing. You can not, and should never, extrapolate traits of a people onto an individual person of those people. Statisticians, and those like me who have degrees in mathematics, understand this, which is why I have been careful to talk about overall populations.
By the way, I changed in the quote people to persons. You cant treat people since a people is a combinations of many persons of similar traits, by definition. That sentence was poorly written and should be persons, whom are individuals.
PS, to prove a point, below is an example of a fully gender binary set of bell curves, which Omer seems to think I am imply exist in the real world. Notice, they don't overal lap at all. None of the curves I have present do this; they all overlap. What I have been talking about is the degree at which they do and how this effects the extremes. Completely different.
-
But for you to ignore the basic fact that overall females are more feminine and that males are more masculine, even by slightly, is ignoring SCIENCE. To ignore that this could be a real reason on why people choose (THEMSELVES, NOT FORCED INTO) the professions they do, is also ignoring science.
The problem you are having is that you are completely incapable of thinking about this from a societal point of view, and not an individual one. You keep on thinking that I am insisting on judging a person based on population studies that cover a large.
Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows this is not what I am doing.
The problem with these types of studies is that it is critical to understand the group of people being studied. I venture to say that in some areas of the US there is not much change in sexual stereotypes and probably very few females go into STEM. In our area of suburban Maryland there is no difference and many females in both my daughters high school cohort went into STEM research areas.
-
The problem with these types of studies is that it is critical to understand the group of people being studied. I venture to say that in some areas of the US there is not much change in sexual stereotypes and probably very few females go into STEM. In our area of suburban Maryland there is no difference and many females in both my daughters high school cohort went into STEM research areas.
This is true, which is why I mention sub-cultural socialization as being probably the 2nd most important aspect in todays more liberal world.
With that said, I would much rather rely on data contrasting girls to boys in your area followed up by research to see how many kept their major once in school then just second hand observations you made. No offense, but from a statistical point of view, casual observations are notorious for having confirmation bias in them.
PS
Just to add what I mean by bias, since some people hear obviously have little to no understanding of statistics (not you Allen), casual observations by nature are filled with bias. First, people tend to look for things that confirm their belief structures. Alan is a liberal, and (no offense to Allan) he is going to naturally look for things that fulfill this world view, hence an observation bias. So, for someone who believes social constructs are what causes professional choices, not biological, he will look for females entering STEM to fulfill his world view and will tend to ignore those instances where they did not. Second, Alan's casual observations are by no means random. Since he brought up his daughters, it is more then likely the case these observations are based off of his daughters and their friends. This is by no means a random sample, so it is filled with selection bias. On top of that, birds of a feather flock together, and if Alan's daughters were science oriented and determined, more then likely their friends were too. Furthermore, judging by the fact Alan was a rather successful individual it would not be out of the question to assume his daughters went to a private school, especially since he lives in a major urban center. If this is the case, most of their friends also went to a private school, which would alienate them further from the overall population and make the observations even less random.
This is why evidence is so important and you need to shape you view around independent non-bias evidence, that should be also peer-reviewed. It is also very important in whatever study you come across to ask how the sample was put together. You can prove anything with the right sample, but if that sample was not random and large (and in some instances stratified), your study is probably meaningless.
-
STEM degrees almost guarantee high employability and high income. So girls should definitely go there. To find future husbands.
-
STEM degrees almost guarantee high employability and high income. So girls should definitely go there. To find future husbands.
Good one, Slobodan!
But the job opportunities in the nursing field seem to outlast the ones in programming. Especially for the young seniors.
-
Good one, Slobodan!
But the job opportunities in the nursing field seem to outlast the ones in programming. Especially for the young seniors.
Ha!! Quite so!!
-
I also have to wonder what effect this will have on the male professors.
Most don't like getting paid less than someone who is not as qualified, regardless of gender. If male professors realize they make less than their female counterparts just because they are a male, I cant see many of them accepting this.
Could this cause the most qualified male professors to move on?
This could not fly in the US due to laws against salary differences based on gender. The men would sue in court.
-
This could not fly in the US due to laws against salary differences based on gender. The men would sue in court.
Oh the irony that would have.
-
Getting back to photography, when I look at photos on the web, I think women on average have more interesting photos that connect. I believe this comes from their natural affinity of relations with people while men tend to get caught up in technique rather than feeling. Women also tend to focus on people shots leaving landscapes to the men. Again, for the same reason I mentioned.
What do you see between men and women's photography?
-
Getting back to photography, when I look at photos on the web, I think women on average have more interesting photos that connect. I believe this comes from their natural affinity of relations with people while men tend to get caught up in technique rather than feeling. Women also tend to focus on people shots leaving landscapes to the men. Again, for the same reason I mentioned.
What do you see between men and women's photography?
This is complicated, and my feelings on this kind of go against what I have stated somewhat. Also, I am looking at this professionally, insofar as what female professionals shoot compared to male professionals, not the average hobbyist.
My wife is a food photographer, which has nothing to do with people. However, she is very determined and tough as nails when it comes to negotiating. I would not want to be on the opposite side of a negotiation with her. On top of that, it is a commercial field of photography more dependent on B2B marketing then B2C. Overall, I, and my wife, think the negotiating aspect of commercial photography (having the guts to ask for those high prices) and the B2B marketing aspect is less geared to women than men. My wife often gets on other women to get more on the ball with negotiating and just picking up the phone and calling someone, which many women seem to have trouble with. Now many male photographers I talk with have issues with cold calling too, sales and just reaching out to people. However, I think the very nature that boys are expected to ask a girl on a date, and most girls never deal with this very hard to get over adolescence experience filled with denials, holds them back in B2B dealings.
I think back to when I was a teenager and I was super shy. Every girlfriend I had asked me out aside from my wife (so I guess I picked the right one ;)). So I was never really used to dealing with denials in sales. I just had an intense desire to be a professional so much so, I forced myself to get over it. But to get to the point of being able to pick up the phone and not let a denial bother you mentally took a while. I think this is just something young men have an edge on just do to dating norms.
The real issue is that with B2B marketing there is a very small number of people you market to. For me I have a list of 5000, which sounds big, but a wedding photographer goes after an entire metro area. 5000 contacts is a decent amount to manage and being able to just pick up the phone and call makes a boat load of difference. I, and my wife, have great clients gotten from just making a call to someone who had no reason at all to talk to us.
In addition to that, commercial photography, especially those that fall under the still life genre, are much more technical and more applicable to people who are gear heads. Going back to the study I listed, men tend to be more interested in things, so it just make sense more technical fields tend to be more male dominated. Food photography certainly has it's technical aspects, but not nearly as much as architectural photography. So, although men outnumber women in food photography, men really out number women in architectural photography. I could rattle off a dozen competitors of mine who are men; it takes me a while to think of the few women I bid against. Not say they are less good, just less of them. Film production is even worse, and I specifically talking about the gaffers, techs and grips, not the DPs here. I have a very progressive feminist female assistant who feels film guys are constantly talking gear with her to test her knowledge just because she is a woman. I tend to disagree and think it's just a bunch of gear-heads being gear-heads. (Film people really are super duper gear centric; even for someone as technical as I, I find it baffling how someone could talk nothing but gear all day. Images need to have feeling, but I guess that is what the DP is for, not the gaffers and grips.) So there is this too.
With all this though, there is also the real fact that many commercial photographers don't like hiring female assistants, so they get less exposure to the industry. It's sexist, but not for the reasons you are thinking. Women are not as strong as men, and when you are a commercial photographer showing up with 500 lb of gear, the strength of your assistants make a difference. This is a real (perceived at least) issue with photographers, and the worse offenders are actually other women. I have tried to recommend female assistants to other female photographers and have been turned down. The reason is always, "I'm a woman and I would rather have a man to carry the gear then another woman who may not be able to." Makes sense, for location shoots, and I can not really argue that, but it does have the effect of less women in the commercial side of things.
For studio shoots, I consider this absolute total bull shit since everything is pretty much already there and studio shoot tend to be less intense that location shoots.
(Typically, I usually have no issue with a female assistant and could care less. I am a 210 lb man in very good shape and if she cant lift something, I should be able to. If I cant, then I should not have it. The only time I can really think of when I choose to hire a man over a woman was when I shooting in the 5th story of a 5-story walk-up on West Broadway. In NYC, for all of my shoots, I unload and then park somewhere. It takes about 20 minutes to park, which means by the time I get back all the gear will have been brought to the location. I just could not bring my first assistant, Amanda, to carry 500 lb. of gear up 4 flights of stairs by herself, so I hired Kelvin. And yes, we always comment on Kelvin's name since he is a photographer. Other then this one time, I cant think of any times I specifically choose a male assistant over a female one.)
-
Joe, how do you feel about the average hobbyist photographer - male vs. female, as far as the photos are concerned? Do you see a difference and what is it?
-
Joe, how do you feel about the average hobbyist photographer - male vs. female, as far as the photos are concerned? Do you see a difference and what is it?
To be honest, I don't really pay attention to the quality of the average hobbyist, nor what the average female vs male is producing.
You have to remember as a professional, I am always looking up to those that are better then me. Probably the main reason why I (and other professional artists) am never really happy with my work. I am not going to analyze someone not as a good as me, since that will not teach me anything. So, with this, I cant say. Plus, would you really want a professional looking down at your work with a sense of superiority? If I did that to you, unasked, you would think I am a condescending jerk, so I try not to critique those who do this as a hobby. This about enjoyment for you; for me it is my life's work.
Insofar as other professionals, I almost never think about the gender of the person who shot the image. A great image is a great image regardless of gender. If I see a great commisioned architectural image, my response is always the same. Pure unadulterated hatred of that photographer, with the exceptions of my ideals.
"How dare that photographer get hired to shoot that job without me even being asked so much as to bid on it. I need to figure out his/her clients and take that person down!"
My wife feels the same way when looking at great food photography. I have yet to meet any successful photographer who does not think this way.
-
Furthermore, judging by the fact Alan was a rather successful individual it would not be out of the question to assume his daughters went to a private school, especially since he lives in a major urban center. If this is the case, most of their friends also went to a private school, which would alienate them further from the overall population and make the observations even less random.
Only successful in that I had a good career. ;) Both daughters went to public schools in Bethesda, but our schools are very good in terms of academic achievement.
-
Only successful in that I had a good career. ;) Both daughters went to public schools in Bethesda, but our schools are very good in terms of academic achievement.
I was wondering that. If you lived in DC, I would almost certainly expect that you sent your kids to private school. Bethesda, up in the air, and probably a still better school district then some private schools.
-
What do you see between men and women's photography?
Interesting topic. Margaret Bourke-White and Dorthea Lange come to mind in the 1930s as top notch photographers.
-
To be honest, I don't really pay attention to the quality of the average hobbyist, nor what the average female vs male is producing.
You have to remember as a professional, I am always looking up to those that are better then me. Probably the main reason why I (and other professional artists) am never really happy with my work. I am not going to analyze someone not as a good as me, since that will not teach me anything. So, with this, I cant say. Plus, would you really want a professional looking down at your work with a sense of superiority? If I did that to you, unasked, you would think I am a condescending jerk, so I try not to critique those who do this as a hobby. This about enjoyment for you, for me it is my life's work.
Insofar as other professionals, I almost never think about the gender of the person who shot the image. A great image is a great image regardless of gender. If I see a great commisioned architectural image, my response is always the same. Pure unadulterated hatred of that photographer, with the exceptions of my ideals.
"How dare the photographer get hired to shoot that job without me even being asked so much as to bid on it. I need to figure out his/her clients and take that person down!"
My wife feels the same way when looking at great food photography. I have yet to meet any successful photographer who does not think this way.
Understand that I say this without judgment, but I can't image a more foreign way of thinking that what you've outlined above. :)
-
Interesting topic. Margaret Bourke-White and Dorthea Lange come to mind in the 1930s as top notch photographers.
Not to distract from what I agree is an interesting question, but I couldn't get back here in time to add on to the nurse/STEM conversation, and I remembered something interesting. Studies suggest (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/19/506144346/patients-cared-for-by-female-doctors-fare-better-than-those-treated-by-men) that female doctors deliver better outcomes than male doctors. I wonder how that reconciles with the Joe's claims about the end of the bell curve and the assumed male-oriented focus on the sciences? Certainly there's an aspect of "human care" to it, but why the discrepancy between doctors and nurses as far as the perception of the "appropriate" career for a specific gender?
-
James, bedside manners.
-
James, bedside manners.
;D. (But there's probably something to that...)
-
Understand that I say this without judgment, but I can't image a more foreign way of thinking that what you've outlined above. :)
There was a great documentary on JD Salinger a few years back. It mentioned how he always encouraged other artists except for other writers (before he became a recluse). Same exact reason why. Other writers are competition, painters are not. I am on friendly grounds with other architectural photographers, and consider a couple to be good friends. But I would steal their clients in a heartbeat, and they would of mine. It's just a fact of life with being in business.
Insofar as never being pleased with my work, this is universal amongst all pros I talk to, especially those in the higher end. I study my competitors' work, especially those better then me. I spend hours breaking down images and trying to figure out how to apply them to mine. And since these images are better then mine, when I look at my work it never measures up. Even the top end guys compare their body of work to the now dead legions of the past.
Ezra Stoller pretty much founded architectural photography and is one of the most well known photographers in the genre. I am sure the top end guys in the world sit back and wonder, will my work be respected on the same level as Stoller after I am gone.
There was even a paper on this unusual aspect of artists a few years back. You should hear my wife and I go back and forth criticizing our own work (like I critique mine and she hers) just for the other to say, "knock it off, you just got hired by (insert some extremely high-end architect or food client)."
-
;D. (But there's probably something to that...)
As Rob already explained, a lovely nurse will raise you from the dead and lift your spirits (and not only that).
-
Not to distract from what I agree is an interesting question, but I couldn't get back here in time to add on to the nurse/STEM conversation, and I remembered something interesting. Studies suggest (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/19/506144346/patients-cared-for-by-female-doctors-fare-better-than-those-treated-by-men) that female doctors deliver better outcomes than male doctors. I wonder how that reconciles with the Joe's claims about the end of the bell curve and the assumed male-oriented focus on the sciences? Certainly there's an aspect of "human care" to it, but why the discrepancy between doctors and nurses as far as the perception of the "appropriate" career for a specific gender?
The end of the bell curve I have mentioned has nothing to do with quality, only interests.
Quality is something unrelated and not anything I happen to have read anything on, so I have no idea. ???
-
Interesting topic. Margaret Bourke-White and Dorthea Lange come to mind in the 1930s as top notch photographers.
I wasn't referring to the top end photographers or how good they were. Rather I was wondering whether the average male photographer's photos are different than the female's and in what way? Is that because of nature or nurture?
-
I wasn't referring to the top end photographers or how good they were. Rather I was wondering whether the average male photographer's photos are different than the female's and in what way? Is that because of nature or nurture?
I would say no, although genres tend to have inherent visual traits that "could" be deemed masculine or feminine. Architectural photography is all about geometry and how spaces interact with each other. So a good architectural photographer is in tune with this. Photography for interior designers though is all about colors, textures, patterns and furniture chooses. Is one more male then the other? Maybe, but then again I think that would be a stretch.
Obviously if one wants work with architects, you better be in tune with the geometry. If you want to work with interior designers, you need to be in tune with the color scheme and textures. But I think this come does to more interests that dont rely on biological differences.
I am a math guy, so I work better with architects. Another "architectural" photographer I know was a painter, so he works best with interior designers. How is this gender related or even is, no idea. Perhaps I am being too specific with just looking at two genres really really close to each other as well.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't think any women have contributed to this topic yet.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't think any women have contributed to this topic yet.
Many apparently closeted ones did.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't think any women have contributed to this topic yet.
Why would any woman hang around the Coffee Corner?
-
Why would any woman hang around the Coffee Corner?
To find a man of her dreams?
-
As Rob already explained, a lovely nurse will raise you from the dead and lift your spirits (and not only that).
And to think I thought nobody nemembered anything of mine!
You have restored my confidence.
;-)
-
I wasn't referring to the top end photographers or how good they were. Rather I was wondering whether the average male photographer's photos are different than the female's and in what way? Is that because of nature or nurture?
The problem is, the huge majority of photography one sees is meaningless in the sense not of message but of content.
I don't think I subcribe very much to the concept of message in pictures - other than political cartoons or traffic signs, and warnings about quicksands and snakes.
Photography has two principal functions, to my mind: it can be used to sell something; it can be used to decorate somewhere.
As self-expression, if you remove it from the commercial side - and some commercial genres are entirely about the photographer's ability to express himself - then what do the majority of pix you see on the Internet have to tell you about their makers? Nothing, other than many fall into traps of manipulation, where that becomes the raison d'être of the entire output. Remember Cokin? Everybody who knew about them bought at least one and ruined many an otherwise good landscape. I ruined a pile of Lindos, Rhodes pictures using a friggin' tabac filter. Just as I once did some T&T ones using a polarizing filter. But it becomes a part of the learning process: simple is almost always best. Just as with lighting.
So that's where the problem lies with me vis-à-vis amateur images: what's their point? If the answer to that is that it is the photographer trying to teach himself something, then great, to him it has meaning and even possibly reward, but to others, usually nothing.
That written, please do not conflate it with the idea that some amateurs are not excellent photographers, because nothing could be further from the truth. Being a pro does not mean you are always the better photographer; yes, you may have gathered expertise in some areas, but even there, many others are invariably far better at it in your chosen genre.
Male or female? I have two favourite female photographers: Sarah Moon and Deborah Turbeville. I wouldn't say either are great technicians in the sense that you go wow! in seeing their skill in lighting etc. but for me, the charge is entirely in the feeling of the images and the femininity and mood they create out of whatever is there in front of them. Even the models they choose and they way they use them is so different to how the average male would use them - he would probably not even pick those girls in the first place. And almost certainly not get the same expressions on their faces. The proof of that pudding is that I can sit and look at their images for hours - and do - and never become bored.
Of the males, I guess it's Hans Feurer for his long lens ability to isolate and create a tiny world of beauty with just a face, a blur, some fabric and the set of amazing stylists it's been his luck to have known over the years. Try to do what he does without those bits of absolutely eclectic cloths and colours and you find that you can't. Then there's Peter Lindbergh. I don't know where the hell I am with that guy. I have his huge tome on "a different vision on fashion photography" and it both fascinates as disappoints me. So much blackness, so much gloom! BUT! look at the "making of" videos, and another Peter comes to life. Perhaps his medium is not really paper but film. Whilst the book now stays mainly on the shelf, the videos never bore me. Perhaps the videos bring back my own memories of working towards a picture, those wonderfully emotional few minutes where you know there is an outcome but not yet how to get to it. In so many real ways photography, with a model, is like a kind of brief love affair, which is why I can't stress enough how vital it is that the photographer be allowed to choose the short-list of girls for shoots. How can you create beauty from someone who leaves you cold - or worse? You still need that psychological turn-on. Otherwise, pass.
So how are the two genders different in photographic terms? The bottom line seems to be that female photographers share emotions with models as they strive towards their picture, whereas male photographers can't do that: they try to have the girl express what the photographer thinks of as his ideal kind of woman. Rather than play naturally in the same playground as the model, he has to invent a game for her to play in his.
The differences are entirely based on gender.
I don't see a male shooting 'em quite this way (attached pic by Deborah Turbeville.)
Rob
-
To find a man of her dreams?
Meanwhile, on Planet Earth ... :-)
-
Meanwhile, on Planet Earth ... :-)
It was always going to be difficult for the ladies of my generation: as with Russ, we were snapped up early.
Wonderful; best thing ever.
:-)
-
I may be wrong, but I don't think any women have contributed to this topic yet.
I've only counted a handful of women on LuLa judging by their names.
-
I've only counted a handful of women on LuLa judging by their names.
Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?
-
I've only counted a handful of women on LuLa judging by their names.
That is true for the active posters group, not necessarily for lurkers.
One of the differences between males and females is that most women try to avoid confrontation and rejection, so usually they refrain from posting.
-
Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?
Exactly.
-
I don't think that is a fair assessment. For any critical comment there would be several complimentary posts.
-
... Rather than play naturally in the same playground as the model, he has to invent a game for her to play in his.
The differences are entirely based on gender.
I don't see a male shooting 'em quite this way (attached pic by Deborah Turbeville.)
Rob
Which leads to the question whether a male photographer experiences the same difference when photographing a male model...?
-
That is true for the active posters group, not necessarily for lurkers.
One of the differences between males and females is that most women try to avoid confrontation and rejection, so usually they refrain from posting.
You may have met a skewed sample of women.
-
I don't think that is a fair assessment. For any critical comment there would be several complimentary posts.
The reason women are absent from this forum is not because they are scared of being criticised, but because the forum is rife with everyday sexism — this thread being a case in point.
-
Exactly.
"Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?"... Jeremyrh.
Who is doing this? The main thrust (dare I write that in today's climate?) is that men and women are not the same friggin' thing, and those who want to contest and force the issue are creating problems that don't exist outwith their insistence in creating them.
I speak not of plumbing, but of personality and general interest in differing subject matter.
Some, here, who complain about the perceived lack of engineers with skirts are just putting their social engineering politics where their mouths are. They don't want things to be as they are, having a far greater master plan that society must be forced into accepting, or be shamed, by means of artificially inseminated bullshit notions that conflate womanhood, maternity, fulfillment, instinct and career into one sorry, massively over-shrimped jambalaya.
What appears quite remarkable is that few here actually appear to have asked the women how they feel. As another poster pointed out, attained statistics depend on whom you ask, how you ask and a host of details that make general conclusions from research of doubtful merit. Were that not so, many more songs and movies would succeed, rather than the few that make it to heaven and back over generations. If you want reliable statistics of what constitutes working relationships - and what not - look at history: we have populated the Earth and made it fruitful doing it the old-fashioned way. And no, that has nothing to do with equal rights, which is an entirely separate issue and should never have been in doubt. Having different genders does no imply either has innate superiority: hell, most of the idiots I know are middle-aged white males. What is most certain - and obvious to anyone but those who will not see - is that the genders think differently. If you, as males, doubt that, then I'm afraid you have not been around enough women long enough to appreciate them for what they truly are: the salt of this Earth. But hey, some dick here will even read that as "condescension".
Rob
-
Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?
As Rob points out, there are indeed quite a few differences between men and women. One of them being that women are not such gearheads as men.
In the past, Kevin tried to bring women to this site and published several articles showing pictures of female photographers. Contrary to false accusations about belittling of women in this thread overwhelming majority of comments re: those articles or artist profiles were posts were congratulatory and highly favourable. Some of the comments came from female readers. Those articles and related discussion threads all available to read.
As to the differences in the interest in technical details between men and women, the following anecdote may serve as evidence.
A successful lawyer is telling his secretary about his new car. "I just bought a new two-tone BMW 550i. It has a twin-turbocharged V8 with 445 hp and 480 lb-ft torque, ABS and driveline traction control, front and rear dual zone air conditioning, and an eight-speed automatic transmission." The secretary doesn't say much, so the lawyer asks her "And what kind of car do you drive?". "A white one" responds the lady.
I knew several such ladies, almost all of them driving white Corollas.
-
A successful lawyer is telling his secretary about his new car.
And we assume that the secretary is female, right ?
-
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
Exactly. QED.
-
Having different genders does no imply either has innate superiority: hell, most of the idiots I know are middle-aged white males. What is most certain - and obvious to anyone but those who will not see - is that the genders think differently.
That's not the issue.
The issue is when the next logical step is claimed to be that women (or men) are therefore less suited to certain opportunities, and that trying to balance this inequity is simply a desire to bow at the altar of "political correctness."
Joe's bell curves are nicely illustrative, but they are addressing the argument at the extremes, where perhaps these innate differences DO manifest into distinct differences. Thing is, extreme circumstances make for bad law, or something along those lines. The vast majority of us operate in the middle by definition, where even the bell curve enthusiasts are forced to admit that the differences in application are minor. So when there's an initiative to get more women into STEM, for example, it's not addressing the outliers at the end (no one would have denied Stephen Hawking a spot on the podium in the interest of gender diversity), but rather the middle positions where institutional issues make the ratio 90/10 instead of a natural 45/55 or whatever.
-
Joe's bell curves are nicely illustrative, but they are addressing the argument at the extremes, where perhaps these innate differences DO manifest into distinct differences. Thing is, extreme circumstances make for bad law, or something along those lines. The vast majority of us operate in the middle by definition, where even the bell curve enthusiasts are forced to admit that the differences in application are minor. So when there's an initiative to get more women into STEM, for example, it's not addressing the outliers at the end (no one would have denied Stephen Hawking a spot on the podium in the interest of gender diversity), but rather the middle positions where institutional issues make the ratio 90/10 instead of a natural 45/55 or whatever.
My thoughts too, but you expressed it better than I could.
-
That's not the issue.
The issue is when the next logical step is claimed to be that women (or men) are therefore less suited to certain opportunities, and that trying to balance this inequity is simply a desire to bow at the altar of "political correctness."
Joe's bell curves are nicely illustrative, but they are addressing the argument at the extremes, where perhaps these innate differences DO manifest into distinct differences. Thing is, extreme circumstances make for bad law, or something along those lines. The vast majority of us operate in the middle by definition, where even the bell curve enthusiasts are forced to admit that the differences in application are minor. So when there's an initiative to get more women into STEM, for example, it's not addressing the outliers at the end (no one would have denied Stephen Hawking a spot on the podium in the interest of gender diversity), but rather the middle positions where institutional issues make the ratio 90/10 instead of a natural 45/55 or whatever.
Jim, don't you think that women hire more women when they're in the position of authority? We tend to get along with people who are like us, same gender, background, culture, ethnicity, language, status, wealth, etc. I'm not saying that is right or wrong. It's just that how it is.
-
Exactly. QED.
Jeremy, you may want to write this down somewhere, so we can save ourselves unnecessary interaction in the future.
I don't come to this forum to argue, score some points or trying to win any contretemps. When I post something, it's either because I find it interesting and potentially useful to others, or I want to interject some lighthearted fun. If you want to endlessly polemicise about inconsequential points, i'm sure you can find here more suitable adversaries.
-
You have to have a sense of humor to appreciate satire.
-
When I post something, it's either because I find it interesting and potentially useful to others, or I want to interject some lighthearted fun.
And into which category did you imagine that your 'secretary' anecdote fell?
-
The issue is when the next logical step is claimed to be that women (or men) are therefore less suited to certain opportunities, and that trying to balance this inequity is simply a desire to bow at the altar of "political correctness."
If any hiring or promotion is done on merit, a gender question is totally irrelevant. A recent case in point:
Christine Lagarde, the woman who rolled her eyes at Ivanka Trump, has been just nominated to become the first female head of the European Central Bank.
Ursula von der Leyen, previous German Defence Minister, just replaced Jean-Claude Juncker after the main front-runners were rejected.
No discrimination or appointment due to feminist demands, both ladies are extremely capable, having earned respect from both female and male voters.
-
If any hiring or promotion is done on merit, a gender question is totally irrelevant. A recent case in point:
Christine Lagarde, the woman who rolled her eyes at Ivanka Trump, has been just nominated to become the first female head of the European Central Bank.
Ursula von der Leyen, previous German Defence Minister, just replaced Jean-Claude Juncker after the main front-runners were rejected.
No discrimination or appointment due to feminist demands, both ladies are extremely capable, having earned respect from both female and male voters.
I really think women are in their heyday. Just look at the candidates for American president. Harris, Warren, Gabbard, etc. I think Americans at least have gotten over that males have to be president. Hillary broke the glass ceiling. But that raises a question. Is it right now for women to vote for a woman candidate just because she's a woman? Or are we just continuing the same situation when men promoted men just because they were men?
-
Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh just hired an all-female staff to clerk for him. Is that going too far? Aren't there any good male clerks? Is the pendulum swinging too far the other way?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-praises-brett-kavanaugh-and-reflects-on-gender-equality-georgetown-2019-07-02/
-
Hmmm. I wonder of he's going to share a beer or two with them?
-
Hmmm. I wonder of he's going to share a beer or two with them?
He likes beer.
-
Why would any woman hang around the Coffee Corner?
The prove equality for equality sake?
-
Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?
Since I’ve never seen your photographs, if I told you the same, would you feel less manly or more feminine ? ;) :P
-
A successful lawyer is telling his secretary about his new car.
And we assume that the secretary is female, right ?
Which makes us sexist and misogynist, right?
Or it makes us creatures with eyes and brains, with some elementary logic and statistical ability for a good measure?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html
-
That's not the issue.
The issue is when the next logical step is claimed to be that women (or men) are therefore less suited to certain opportunities, and that trying to balance this inequity is simply a desire to bow at the altar of "political correctness."
Joe's bell curves are nicely illustrative, but they are addressing the argument at the extremes, where perhaps these innate differences DO manifest into distinct differences. Thing is, extreme circumstances make for bad law, or something along those lines. The vast majority of us operate in the middle by definition, where even the bell curve enthusiasts are forced to admit that the differences in application are minor. So when there's an initiative to get more women into STEM, for example, it's not addressing the outliers at the end (no one would have denied Stephen Hawking a spot on the podium in the interest of gender diversity), but rather the middle positions where institutional issues make the ratio 90/10 instead of a natural 45/55 or whatever.
This is just not the way that those bell curves should be looked at. I would agree that for most interpretations, working in the extremes or only looking at them would not be correct. But this situation is different and partly the reason why you are having a false interpretation of these curves is that I did not fulling explain them. So lets post them again this time and describe what each side means.
When it comes to interest in work, working with people vs working with objects are opposites. So, in the graph, the far left side of the curve are filled with people who really like working with people above all else. The far right side are those whom really enjoy working with objects. The middle are those benevolent souls who are not one way or the other, or maybe only by a bit. As you can see, the graphs overlaps but are slightly off. The female graph trends to the left and the male graph trends to the right.
(By the way, if you have any doubt these slight differences exist biologically, it has been proven ... by studying females who were victims of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, a situation were higher amount of male hormones were present during gestation, and comparing them to their unaffected sisters. Since you are comparing two sisters whom were raised by the same parents in the same socialization, all factors are reduced greatly except biology. So the differences have to be biological, especially if you find this to be the case across a sample of 125, which is how big the study was. If you think 125 is small, for many medical studies it might be. But we are talking about a group of people whom you can only be sure were affect by this by analyzing the embryonic fluid through out the pregnancy. After birth, it is impossible to determine if someone was affect by CAH, and the fact is that not too many mothers would be open to constantly have their fluids tested. So there are not a high number of known test subjects out there to look at. Also, a properly sourced random sample of 30 will generate an accurate view of a population, so 125 is certainly a large enough group.)
And in both extremes, the corresponding gender has a much greater representation then by how much the average is off by.
Now, the question is what type of careers will fall towards either end and what towards the middle?
You mention that since most of us fall in the middle, only looking at the extremes would not make sense. I would agree with you if the only careers that existed were those at the extremes. But what you fail to recognize is that most jobs fall in the middle too. So for the most of us middle of the road people, on which the majority of both genders are, there are a very large amount of jobs that would fit the interests of the middle of the roaders. So it is with these jobs most people find themselves in. However, the jobs that are very people oriented or very object oriented are at the extremes and thus would only attract those at the extremes as well.
Jobs like programming or nursing.
So when looking at these jobs that fall at the extremes it makes perfect sense to think about those people at the extremes as filling them. So, case in point, looking at the ends of the bell curves for interest when looking at jobs that also fall at those ends is the correct thing to do.
In a response to you first statement about next logical steps, this is just simply not the case nor what I advocating. As was pointed before, I am merely talking about interests and not ability. They are unrelated and just because you may not be interested in doing something does not mean you will be bad at it, and of course vis versa. So using this data as a reason to discriminate is just wrong and inappropriate. This is not what I am advocating.
I am merely pointing out a difference in interests exists between genders and that is probably the main reason for the disparities. It is a result of purely innocent decisions made on a personal level in regards to what career path that individual wants to follow. And to imply that in today's political correct world, were companies are bending over backwards to hire women at all costs but still can't fill the quotas, that there exist some underlying sexism keeping women back just makes no sense.
-
that has nothing to do with equal rights, which is an entirely separate issue and should never have been in doubt. Having different genders does no imply either has innate superiority: hell, most of the idiots I know are middle-aged white males.
Indeed. The only completely reliable way to be certain an organization or field offers equal opportunities to both sexes is when it contains as many incompetent women as incompetent men.
-
Which makes us sexist and misogynist, right?
Or it makes us creatures with eyes and brains, with some elementary logic and statistical ability for a good measure?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html
This makes me think of another interesting study done by Harvard (or Yale, but one of the two) about a decade ago. They wanted to see if putting a picture on your resume would increase the chances of getting called in for an interview. What they found was quite striking.
If you are an average man, you are 25% more likely to get called in. If you are very good looking though, you are 35% more likely. Now if you are a woman, you are 25% less likely to called in with a picture, and if you are a very good looking woman 35% less likely.
This was rather odd; the researcher thought there would be no difference between the genders. So they decided to extend the research to figure out why this happened. It is actually quite the simple explanation.
It turns out that 95% of securities and assistant hiring managers are young women, and they are the first ones to look over resumes. Since everyone likes eye candy, if a resume with a decent looking man came through, of course that one would be put in the pile for her boss to see, especially if he was really good looking. Why rely on a picture when you can see the real deal in person. Also, no one likes competition, so any resumes with good looking women were more likely to go into the reject pile.
-
Too many women have chased after a career to the point where it's too late biologically for them to take on the most important and fulfilling career available to them - being a mom.
-
Too many women have chased after a career to the point where it's too late biologically for them to take on the most important and fulfilling career available to them - being a mom.
Very true, however there are exceptions.
Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, whom I mentioned in one of my previous posts (could have been in another thread) is a German politician who served as Minister of Defence between 2013 and 2019, and now she's been nominated for the EU top job to take on the Commission presidency, with responsibilities including proposing new EU laws, enforcing the bloc's rules and handling trade deals. Born in Brussels, her family moved to Germany when she was 13. She studied economics at London's LSE and medicine in Hanover before going into politics and she is fluent in English, German and French. Among her other accomplishments is her original occupation as a physician and being a mother to seven children. And she is also very attractive, a prime target for all the paparazzis.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48841980
-
Yes, she is attractive all right. In fact, watching her in a clip on france24.com today, she looked far better in motion and speaking, than in that image in your link. If poor old May had looked like that, and had a good back and the ability to walk upright, who knows what kind of Brexit we might have been talking about in the past tense.
Kennedy had that charisma. Few other politicos come to mind that have any. It is very important, and when accompanied with brains, pretty invincible chemistry. People just like to be around people like that.
-
Most women don't fit on that end of the bell curve.
-
So they have to make a choice.
-
I am starting to see why some on here were so oppositional to the studies I posted.
Regardless of how scientifically they are posted and talked about, some will invariably make snarky jokes based on the data and conclusions.
-
Most women don't fit on that end of the bell curve.
You mean they wouldn't fit inside the bell? Literally or figuratively?
-
I am starting to see why some on here were so oppositional to the studies I posted.
Regardless of how scientifically they are posted and talked about, some will invariably make snarky jokes based on the data and conclusions.
Joe, I found your explanations very insightful and interesting. And definitely more useful that the half-baked personal attacks.
That's the beauty of the discussion threads, you never know what people will post. Thank you for spending time to research and publish it.
-
Joe, I found your explanations very insightful and interesting. And definitely more useful that the half-baked personal attacks.
That's the beauty of the discussion threads, you never know what people will post. Thank you for spending time to research and publish it.
For sure - I appreciate the discussion also. I may not agree with the conclusions, but I'm not "opposed" to talking about them.
-
You mean they wouldn't fit inside the bell? Literally or figuratively?
Both :)
-
Both :)
Our bell must be bigger than your bell.