Scientific sexism in the modern era?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Question asked by thread title.

What are examples of scientific sexism in the modern era? I've gone through the history with phrenology (did it because I wanted to butt heads with the most obsessed of white supremacists), despite how horrible it was, and now I'm onto modern examples. Does anyone know of any modern locations where sexism and segregation is being pushed in this manner?

[xxxxxx666666]

Question asked by thread title.

What are examples of scientific sexism in the modern era? I've gone through the history with phrenology (did it because I wanted to butt heads with the most obsessed of white supremacists), despite how horrible it was, and now I'm onto modern examples. Does anyone know of any modern locations where sexism and segregation is being pushed in this manner?

"Studies" that prove female persons are bad at math is an example of sexism in the scientific community.

And here's a study from 2011 to disprove this (that female person are not bad at math I mean, although some people continue to claim "scientific evidence" for sexism):

Jonathan M. Kane and Janet E. Mertz. Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Dec. 12, 2011 DOI: 10.1090/noti790 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/noti790)

Here's a link to articles that discuss this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/terri-oda-mathematician_n_3769360.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212153123.htm


Another modern locations where sexism and segregation is being pushed is that female persons supposedly have worse spatial abilities than males, i.e. "women can't read maps" :


David Tzuriel, Gila Egozi. Gender Differences in Spatial Ability of Young Children: The Effects of Training and Processing Strategies. Child Development, 2010; 81 (5): 1417 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01482.x (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01482.x)

And here's a link to an article that discuss this, note it just says that gender gaps in spatial abilities can be reduced through training, though it may be interesting nevertheless:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915080431.htm


Note that despite these links that I've shown to disprove these, there are still those who claim there are scientific evidence for their sexism i.e. "female brains are like this and so they can't do X"

[Flying Purple People Eater]

"Studies" that prove female persons are bad at math is an example of sexism in the scientific community.

And here's a study from 2011 to disprove this (that female person are not bad at math I mean, although some people continue to claim "scientific evidence" for sexism):

Jonathan M. Kane and Janet E. Mertz. Debunking Myths about Gender and Mathematics Performance. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Dec. 12, 2011 DOI: 10.1090/noti790 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/noti790)

Here's a link to articles that discuss this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/terri-oda-mathematician_n_3769360.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212153123.htm
Another is that female persons supposedly have worse spatial abilities than males, i.e. "women can't read maps" and so forth.


David Tzuriel, Gila Egozi. Gender Differences in Spatial Ability of Young Children: The Effects of Training and Processing Strategies. Child Development, 2010; 81 (5): 1417 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01482.x (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01482.x)

And here's a link to an article that discuss this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915080431.htm

That's odd. I once heard of a sexist argument that said the opposite was true; that women outperformed men in terms of mathematical ability. There was a similar debunking, though. Disgusting nonetheless.

Interestingly enough, some of the first recorded mathematical equations ever were done by women in ancient Africa to determine menstrual cycles. They were recorded on bones.

[consuming negativity]

I remember seeing an article on the BBC News website fairly recently (within a few weeks of now) that purported to explain "sex differences" in behavior/attitude/etc. by looking at the brain "wiring" of different persons.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25198063



Male brains appeared to be wired front to back, with few connections bridging the two hemispheres.

In females, the pathways criss-crossed between left and right.

These differences might explain why men, in general, tend to be better at learning and performing a single task, like cycling or navigating, whereas women are more equipped for multitasking, say the researchers in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The same volunteers were asked to perform a series of cognitive tests, and the results appeared to support this notion.

But experts have questioned whether it can be that simple, arguing it is a huge leap to extrapolate from anatomical differences to try to explain behavioural variation between the sexes. Also, brain connections are not set and can change throughout life.

In the study, women scored well on attention, word and face memory, and social cognition, while men performed better on spatial processing and sensori-motor speed.It was very disappointing to see a lot of my friends, when shown the article, think it was great and not understand my frustration.

[xxxxxx666666]

That's odd. I once heard of a sexist argument that said the opposite was true; that women outperformed men in terms of mathematical ability. There was a similar debunking, though. Disgusting nonetheless.

Interestingly enough, some of the first recorded mathematical equations ever were done by women in ancient Africa to determine menstrual cycles. They were recorded on bones.

I would like to know how female persons outperforming in math compared to male persons went like.

And I would like to know more about the first recorded math equations on bones discovered in Africa, and about all facts to combat racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. etc. :grin:

About the bone, I think maybe you were taking about the Lebombo bone so I'll link to it here:

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/Ancient-Africa/lebombo.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebombo_bone

Not really math equations but interesting nevertheless.

Perhaps not related to scientific but still sexism is the myths surrounding "women in combat"

Seven Myths About “Women in Combat" (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat.htm) Written by G.S. Newbold, Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret.)


http://nation.time.com/2013/03/14/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat/

I'll copy and paste it here:

Myth #1 – “It’s about women in combat.”
No, it’s not. Women are already in combat, and are serving well and professionally. The issue should be more clearly entitled, “Women in the infantry.” And this is a decidedly different proposition.
Myth #2 – “Combat has changed” (often accompanied by “There are no front lines anymore”).
This convenient misconception requires several counters. First, any serious study of military history will reveal numerous historical examples about how successive generations (over millennia) believed that warfare had changed forever, only to find that technology may change platforms, but not its harsh essence. To hope that conflicts over the last 20 years are models of a new, antiseptic form of warfare is delusional.
The second point is that the enemy gets a vote – time, place, and style. For example, war on the Korean Peninsula would be a brutal, costly, no-holds-barred nightmare of mayhem in close combat with casualties in a week that could surpass the annual total of recent conflict.
The final point on this myth reinforces the Korea example and it bears examination — Fallujah, Iraq (http://topics.time.com/iraq/) in 2004, where warfare was reduced to a horrific, costly, and exhausting scrap in a destroyed city between two foes that fought to the death.
The standard for ground combat unit composition should be whether social experimentation would have amplified our opportunity for success in that crucible, or diminished it. We gamble with our future security when we set standards for warfare based on the best case, instead of the harshest one.
Myth #3 – “If they pass the physical standards, why not?”
Physical standards are important, but not nearly all of the story. Napoleon – “The moral (spirit) is to the physical as three is to one.”
Unit cohesion is the essence of combat power, and while it may be convenient to dismiss human nature for political expediency, the facts are that sexual dynamics will exist and can affect morale. That may be manageable in other environments, but not in close combat.
Any study of sexual harassment statistics in this age cohort – in the military, academia, or the civilian workplace — are evidence enough that despite best efforts to by sincere leaders to control the issue, human instincts remain strong. Perceptions of favoritism or harassment will be corrosive, and cohesion will be the victim.
Myth #4 – “Standards won’t be lowered.”
This is the cruelest myth of all. The statements of the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are telling.
They essentially declare “guilty until proven innocent” on anyone attempting to maintain the standards which produced the finest fighting force in the world. There are already accommodations (note that unit cohesion won’t be a metric), there will be many more, and we will pay a bloody price for it someday.
Pity the truthful leader who attempts to hold to standards based on realistic combat factors, and tells truth to power. Most won’t, and the others won’t survive.
Myth #5 – “Opening the infantry will provide a better pathway to senior rank for the talented women.”
Not so. What will happen is that we will take very talented females with unlimited potential and change their peer norm when we inject them into the infantry.
Those who might meet the infantry physical standard will find that their peers are expected, as leaders, to far exceed it (and most of their subordinates will, as well).
So instead of advancing to a level appropriate to their potential, they may well be left out.
Myth #6 – “It’s a civil rights issue, much like the integration of the armed forces and allowing gays to serve openly.”
Those who parrot this either hope to scare honest and frank discussion, or confuse national security with utopian ideas.
In the process, they demean initiatives that were to provide equally skilled individuals the opportunity to contribute equally. In each of the other issues, lowered standards were not the consequence.
Myth #7 – “It’s just fair.”
Allow me two points.
First, this is ground warfare we’re discussing, so realism is important.
“Fair” is not part of the direct ground combat lexicon.
Direct ground combat, such as experienced in the frozen tundra of Korea, the rubble of Stalingrad, or the endless 30-day jungle patrols against a grim foe in Viet Nam, is the harshest meritocracy — with the greatest consequences — there is.
And psychology in warfare is germane – the force that is respected (and, yes, feared) has a distinct advantage.
Will women in our infantry enhance a psychological advantage, or hinder it?
Second, if it’s about fairness, why do women get a choice of whether to serve in the infantry (when men do not), and why aren’t they required to register for the draft (as men are)?
It may be that we live in a society in which honest discussion of this issue, relying on facts instead of volume, is not possible. If so, our national security will fall victim to hope instead of reality. And myths be damned.


Read more: Seven Myths About “Women in Combat” | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/03/14/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat/#ixzz2nvmI6Rho) http://nation.time.com/2013/03/14/seven-myths-about-women-in-combat/#ixzz2nvmI6Rho