Slashdot Mirror
Winnie Wrote a Math Book
SoyChemist writes "Hollywood is not known for providing a wealth of positive female role models. Danica McKellar, the actress that played Winnie Cooper on The Wonder Years and Elsie Snuffin on The West Wing, has written a math book for teenage girls. 'Math Doesn't Suck' is done in the style of a teen magazine. It even includes a horoscope, cute doodles of shoes and jewelry, and testimonials from attractive young career women that use math at work. It focuses on fractions and pre-algebra and uses mnemonics like calling a reciprocal a 'refliprocal', because you just take the fraction and flip it upside down. Wired interviewed McKellar about the new book and her crusade to eliminate the achievement gap between boys and girls in math courses. McKellar graduated Summa Cum Laude from UCLA. While studying there, she co-authored a proof and presented it at a conference. After she and Mayim Bialik — star of Blossom and a PhD in neuroscience — appeared in a 20/20 episode about intellectual actresses, several literary agents came knocking on her door."
I don't think one book, even if it looks like the rest of the teen girl trash rags, is going to overcome a decades of social pressure to avoid being seen as "nerdy." What we really need is to have high schools that don't go out of their way to reinforce the perception that going to state for ****ball is the pinnacle of achievement.
The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
If it ain't 90% Greek then it isn't a math book.
Actually this is a good idea the problem is that today there are reports that boys are trailing girls academically. Part of the reason is if they make an All girls school or make programs that are designed to help girls they do so sometimes at the expense of the education of the boys. But if such programs or All boy public schools are made then there is a community cry. Boys and Girls think differently, they need to be taught differently.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...that a book aimed at increasing numeracy has horoscopes? What next? Feng Shui in geography texts?
I applaud this effort. I really really wish there were more women in tech. It would have made my university life more enjoyable. And work would be more fun too....
What? Plenty of good models out there...
And if just talking about looks and all, showing fit and lean, non-obese women is a good thing. We've got a horrible obesity problem out there, so, some skinnier role models are a good thing IMHO.
So, we now have 'thinkers' to combine with the 'lookers'...and pretty soon, we'll have perfect women if they follow their role models.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
My first impression of the book review was - "Oh gawd, a math book went 'OMG Ponies !!111'".
But I've sort of realized that form follows emotion and in a world where Math is not consider cool (not in India though), something like this which stands away from the boring beige world of mathematics would get more eyeballs into the basic subject. Not that I'd consider some of it boring, by any stretch of imagination. And who hasn't rewritten math problems into "real" problems ? (xkcd has become lame of late - I suspect after his visit to MIT).
But such wedges into the insular cracks of things could be nice - to let people burn through the "Thou Suckest" phase of learning anything new. Especially when the field is full of elitist fifty year olds ("elite" is good, "elitist" is bad).
So if it makes a bunch of girls pick up math, good - just the same way Asterix&Obelix makes me want to learn French ... we all just need a reason, to make whatever we're doing cool (ah, the tyranny of cool).
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
So what, the ugly ones don't use math?
Aren't logic and rationality integral to math? I would think that horoscopes contradict that basic reasoning.
I detect a bit of irony in GP's post. One example assumes that a woman is a homemaker who should be cooking dinner for her man; two assumes that a woman should be wearing makeup; three assumes that women should, again, be cooking. That this is framed in the context of something which supposes to emancipate women from underachieving in math, science and engineering is what creates the irony.
Myself, I wouldn't say that being feminine in this highly traditional sense is an innately bad thing, but that other role options should be presented and accepted by people at a young age so they can decide for themselves how to identify.
It's not that the obese population lacks "role models" of
slender or fit people. It that plump people lack role
models of slenderness or fitness that actually seems
reachable by them.
Hard and doesn't suck are two different things. Unless you are talking about basic math, it generally is hard. The only class I ever dropped at Uni was a math class.* I thought I was failing but the teacher was actually grading on a curve. She said I was one of the top students. Key word being 'She'. In fact almost all of my math teachers have been women.
It's almost degrading to women that people keep bringing this stuff up. Condescending might be the right word. Like when someone feels the need to comment about how well Colin Powell speaks. There's an unspoken 'and he's black' that is left hanging for the listener to fill in by themselves.
I get the same feeling everytime I see a story about how some person is the first X to do Y. I get an image of them being patted on the head and someone saying, 'Gee, you're a hero to X people every where, it only took all of recorded history for you Xers to get off your fat lazy assess and do Y, but golly, you finally did, great job. Now go find some other dubious achievement you Xers haven't got around too yet and be the first in that too.'.
Still, Winnie was hot and I always knew she had brains.
---
*I didn't need the credit and wanted to keep my grade point at the honors level. CS was put in with the Natural Sciences like interior decorating, who all seemed to graduate Summa Cum Laude, which blew out the GPA for everyone else.
Every time any adult tries to be cool in order to get kids to pay attention to a subject in school that they hate, they fail miserably. This is not (only) because adults simply aren't cool, but because the ploy is blazingly obvious. The funny thing about teenagers, is that they are the way they are in no small part because they've grown intellectually to the point where they can recognize lies and propaganda. This sort of thing only reinforces the idea that adults are clueless and generally to be ignored. See also: public service announcements by MC Hammer or Flava Flave.
I'd have to admit though, that she does have one important ingredient in the textbook. That she demonstrates that you can be simultaneously pretty and intellectual (and includes other examples). If she could lose the cheesy teen-mag look, I'm sure we'd see some progress.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Myself, I wouldn't say that being feminine in this highly traditional sense is an innately bad thing, but that other role options should be presented and accepted by people at a young age so they can decide for themselves how to identify.
I don't know. It seems her target audience is the teen girl who'd be into magazines about makeup and boys. I think she's trying to show these girls that they can be into makeup and boys and still be good at math. I think she's blurring the roles by adding a component that is normally kept out those roles.
Clearly the book is not for everyone but I like the nontraditional approach.
There's nothing wrong with being a home maker. Kids are enough work that they can keep two parents busy. The problem with early feminism is that they treated women badly who wanted to raise their own children.
If cooking dinner makes you inferior that's issues that are in your head and have no real bearing on reality. Look at all the famous chefs, nobody thinks they are inferior for cooking!
On the other hand I think if I were to have kids, I would want them to be raised by a mother who is educated and knowledgeable. It can be extremely beneficial to introduce children to science at an early age, they seem to really take to it if presented properly. And we all know that public school alone just does not cut it for giving a kid the education they need to succeed. Parents that have the ability and will to home tutor their kids in addition to going to school are going to have kids who have a competitive edge when it comes time to enroll in college or get a job.
Also staying home does not mean you need to be stupid, just like having a paying job doesn't make you intelligent.
The Economist had an interesting article on women in the work place, and that companies are learning that women's careers tend to be non-linear, and that this non-linearity can be a barrier to upper management. And the ability for many of us to telecommute 1 or more days a week is having a dramatic impact on improving the wage inequality between men and women, because it is keeps women from having to choose between career and family.
Things are moving in a positive direction, but that said, books that encourage young girls to be interested in math, science, and technology are beneficial because as we move to a society where it is possible for both parents to work. We will find that it may become impossible for most single income families to live at an income level they are comfortable with. Women may have no choice but to join the work force and establish long term careers in addition to having a family. That's the dark side of all this progress and equality.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's almost degrading to women that people keep bringing this stuff up. Condescending might be the right word. Like when someone feels the need to comment about how well Colin Powell speaks. There's an unspoken 'and he's black' that is left hanging for the listener to fill in by themselves.
In Engineering at a university down the road from Harvard, my only female engineering/math/physics teacher was for Statics. She was also one of the early lead engineers for the Big Dig (a marvel of engineering, despite its flaws).
The thing with Colin Powell is that you expect either rambling bluster a la most politicians (he's more of a statesman though), or a James Earl Jones bass voice. Instead, he has this nice tenor voice delivering complete sentences. It's a rarity in the human race, especially with government and military figures, to have a voice and demeanor that gives the appearance of thoughtfulness. It's why people would vote for him if he ran for public office.
lets create a dumbed down, silly math book with purposely misspelled words just so we can appeal to little girls.
How insulting to girls.
Lets make a similar math book for all the boys who aren't interested in math. It should feature GI Joe's using math to kill each other, aliens, and anything gross or violent. For the older boys lets throw in some soft core porn to get their eyes on the page (males are after all more visual, right?).
Come on! This is rediculous. While I applaud her good intentions, I have to wonder why such a thing was not necessary for girls like her to be interested in math? I am all for making learning fun, and math books are about as dull and boring as it gets, but I see no reason why it has to be dumbed down and made gender specific.
My 9 year old girl is great at math, without this.
There are better ways to get kids to learn. Or, rather, to not turn them off to learning, since they start off wanting to learn and then we destroy that desire later on.
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
For pete's sake, people, since when have mnemonics become the work of the dumbing-down devil? No, you can't learn all of math that way, but when it comes to remember the definition of one term it's fine. I still use SOHCAHTOA, I must be an idiot.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
But maybe this book can show them that by knowing math and being well-educated can make you a *BETTER* homemaker. I try to get this concept across in my freshman college algebra course I teach.
-Doing taxes
-Understanding mortgages (not getting screwed by a baloon payment ARM)
-Not getting ripped off by sales prices and percentages
-Budgets (again, percentages and ratios)
-Understanding the world and the media (statistics)
-Etc
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
Who is the target audience for this book? Kids who are already into math will be embarrassed/disgusted with the teen mag layout, and kids who aren't won't read a math book even if their parents buy it for them and say "look, this actress you may have seen on Nick at Nite wrote a math book!" I think just about anyone would wince at the "breaking a nail" cliche in the title, although I suspect Ms. McKellar's not to blame.
Many of these kinds of efforts look like they were produced by someone who is more concerned with being on record with supporting women going into science and math than actually having a real effect. That's why we end up with textbooks crammed with mini-biographies of Sophie Germain and Ada Lovelace that nobody will actually read and that anyone with enough brainpower to do basic algebra will recognize as tacit admissions that a woman mathematician is an odd duck indeed.
McKellar looks like her heart is in the right place - she's presumably wealthy and is a professional actress, and yet she still devoted serious time and energy to studying math. Presumably she wants others to share her enthusiasm for an interesting and potentially lucrative field of endeavor. But I very much doubt that she was "turned on" to math by a book like this. I imagine that her supportive family and the confidence boost that came from being a TV star helped overcome the anti-math stigma.
Of course, as much as the stereotypical mathematician is not feminine, he's not particularly masculine either, not an effeminate man precisely, probably more of a modern-day eunuch. Certainly no young men go into mathematics to impress their peers, so I think a more important question would be why young women are more influenced by "peer pressure" than young men.
Is it low self-esteem? Women think they can't get ahead except by being "cheerleader" types? Or high self-esteem? Women think they *can* become cheerleader types if they wear uncomfortable enough clothing and enough makeup, while nerdy guys figure they couldn't make the football team in a million years?
Wait, you mean this book is targeted at girls who read fashion magazines? So the context is predefined? Namely the context of talking to girls who like this sort of thing? Oh...well I guess we should just assume shes being condescending, or ignorant, instead of realizing that she is a girlie girl hottie with a frigginErds-Bacon number who might have some personal experience and investment in getting more girls like her to become feminine intellectuals!
This book doesn't make the assumption that it emancipates anyone. It tries to use a damn effective vehicle for communicating material that is often not desirable to consume. If you think I'm wrong, how do you explain the high number of women who purchase fashion magazines who at the same time blame the media for the false image they have to live up to. Thats a magic trick in and of itself, getting people to pay to hate themselves, to be fed tailored insecurities.
Maybe Danica McKellar put some of her UCLA brains to work and found a vehicle that she could co opt to educate and empower these girls.
You know, you may not like it, but there is a class of women out there who are effectively super women. Beautiful, intellectual, empowered, employed in high paying and influential positions, and raising kids. Its just that most MEN, and I use that term referring to genetic makeup, can't handle the realities of being with them. Their pathetic mirror to female insecurity creates this never ending fountain of emasculated feelings. Or, even worse, the hubris laden egos of most technically proficient males can't cope with the fact that their mate can equal, or best them, in an aspect he uses to define himself in.
Thats why you people come up with terms like this:]
Myself, I wouldn't say that being feminine in this highly traditional sense is an innately bad thing, but that other role options should be presented and accepted by people at a young age so they can decide for themselves how to identify.
You NEED to feel at some point in a female's life cycle that they are vulnerable for no other reason than they are female. That a female couldn't possible see the forest for the trees and separate content from context. The worst part is, your closet superiority complex is what is giving you the biggest problem relating to people.
The reality of the matter is its called Marketing 101. Get someone to PURCHASE the book for their daughter, thinking its a good idea. I don't know about you, but many young people don't go out and purchase any raw math text books when they weren't required or directed to. I think someone with a Degree in Mathematics from UCLA could figure this out and perhaps work around it.
Just a thought. Or you can continue on with the asinine idea that every demographic variant needs to be presented with every option represented in every light for every possible socio-economic combination of factors in order to validate itself.
Ignoring the usual trolls here, McKellar did adopt a tabloid-style format that much of the /. crowd would usually deride. Therefore, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by much of the relevant discussion.
But, from what I understand, that's the best approach since the target audience has been fed this format for a number of decades. Actually, I anticipate that mothers will buy it (for their kids) and even flip through it themselves given the probably that they will appreciate the similarity.
And quit whining about the appearance of horoscopes. If horoscopes appear in teen magazine, and you're trying to adhere to the teen magazine format, then something that resembles a horoscope had better be included. In fact, if it was done well, the audience may remember the math the next time they see a similar horoscope (analogy: count the number of Simpson's parodies do you notice on a daily basis).
I applaud the goal and concept but the hardest (and most crucial) part is having the content itself read like a teen magazine. I have no idea how to make that happen, but I'm not the one attempting this. Hopefully McKellar has that talent. Good luck.
This is not my sig
..... how much double standards have come to dominate our discourse.
Let me elaborate.
Imagine for a minute if a successful male role model had written a book explicitly for boys, in the tradition of the classical textbooks on engineering/science/mathematics, and emphasised rigour, and used examples exclusively applicable to males, using language which boys would be comfortable with (but girls would probably not). Imagine he used the default (i.e., masculine) pronoun throughout, so as to make it easier for boys to identify with any example given. Imagine that he completely ignored all the usual PC-language nonsense which the "progressive" crowd in educational circles is so fond of nowadays, and used a no-bullshit, call-a-spade-a-spade approach which boys can usually instantly grok, and are more comfortable with. Further, he would have tried to make mathematics more "manly" by making short work of the idea that boys who like mathematics are "nerds" or other social outcasts, and by identifying it with masculinity throughout the ages. Imagine he tried to bring out the kick-ass-ness of many male mathematicians throughout history, while implicitly linking their masculinity with both their mathematics and their kick-ass-ness - showing it as a complementary triad.
Now imagine that this book had succeeded - imagine it managed to convince a large number of boys to actually learn and like mathematics, and also proved to be something which sparked off a mini-revolution in schools across the country (extremely unlikely, I know, but please bear with me for a moment). Imagine it set off a pro-mathematics trend, or managed to correct the more pernicious effects of the anti-rigour and in general anti-intellectual atmosphere found in many schools today, with special reference to the subjects of mathematics and science.
What would have been the reaction?
Most probably, irrespective of the merits of the book itself, and the work it may have done it get a large number of boys interested in mathematics, it would have been denounced as social commentators, feminists, assorted people from the left, maybe a few from the right, and educationists, as discriminatory, sexist, and insensitive, with probably the "racist" epithet hurled in for good measure.
However, when a feminine role model does it, this thought does not even occur to us. We take it for granted that special books by females for females are, in some mysterious and unquestionable fashion, immune to criticisms which would be levelled against any male who did the corresponding thing for his gender.
This is not to suggest that we should criticise this author. To the contrary, in fact - she has taken efforts to rectify what she sees as a larger cultural problem. She must be applauded for that.
However, the point is that, the same way we applaud her, we must also applaud the hypothetical male author outlined above, for both are working towards a noble goal - that of education - in the way they think they can contribute the most. That is more than can be said for the vast majority.
By ignoring the differences between the genders, we do society and the individuals in it, through the medium of our education policies, a great disservice. By non-judgementally accepting the differences, and optimising our education systems to take them into account, with differently structured books for girls and boys in junior and middle school is the need is felt for such, we can improve education for everyone, instead of making attempts to forcefully fit it into out pet ideological framework.
Denying the reality of the differences between the genders because it does not fit in with our political worldview is, IMHO, as irrational as denying that some scientific fact because it does not fit in with our religious worldview.
More generally, while speaking of mathematics, it is my opinion that teaching it in a rigorous but intuitive manner is an absolute
It's a funny post, but it also illustrates one of the core problems with recruiting girls into math and engineering: a lot of them aren't interested. My sisters don't care about getting into a really intensive job because they know that they're going to get married and become homemakers. It's not that there's a problem if they do differently, it's that they've chosen that path to happiness. How many girls like my sisters are skewing the results of math/engineering studies?
I just had an urge to rewrite this from the other perspective:
It's a funny post, but it also illustrates one of the core problems with recruiting boys into math and engineering: a lot of them aren't interested. My brothers don't care about getting into a really intensive job because they know they're going to get married and become homemakers. It's not that there's a problem if they do differently, it's just that they've chosen that path to happiness. How many boys like my brothers are skewing the results of math/engineering studies?
(If you're too culturally ingrained to picture a man as a homemaker, you can insert "permanent English grad student" in the above paragraph.)
Maybe your sisters aren't interested because they never thought it was cool to be? See, that's kind of what the book is trying to address. There are a number of people who believe that more women would be interested in math and science if they encountered more books like Danica McKellar's and fewer books like The Rules or some of the schlock I've had sent to me by relatives of friends. (Seriously, it takes a lot of nerve to send your 20-year-old nephew a book to give to his female friends which directs them that the only true Christian woman is the wife who unquestioningly follows her husband's orders and stays at home and realizes that when he isn't speaking to her, it's her fault. That was an eye-opening book for me. I felt for that woman's daughters, who had absolutely no interest in math and science or anthing aside from finding a husband. It might possibly have been related to their upbringing.)
And there are a lot of men who aren't interested in math or science either when you ask it like that, but if it has to do with something they do, it's more interesting.
And that's why I really don't like the way feminism is going. It's incredibly frustrating to have my peers think less of me when they find out that I don't actually want to have a career; I want to have some sort of part-time job to help out financially and mainly take care of the house and kids. Just because I can be a highly successful something-or-other and make lots of money and spend all of my time in some office doing the same basic thing for years and years doesn't mean I want to. I'd rather be poorer and happier.
"Beautiful, intellectual, empowered, employed in high paying and influential positions, and raising kids."
Nope. Doesn't exist. You can try to find one, but I guarantee you at least one of those things you list she'll be at best mediocre at, while the reality is it's probably more than one.
"Its just that most MEN, and I use that term referring to genetic makeup, can't handle the realities of being with them. Their pathetic mirror to female insecurity creates this never ending fountain of emasculated feelings."
I can't speak for most men like you just did, but if you're going to go out of your way to appear balanced and enlightened, I think it might be a good idea if you avoid drawing conclusions about "most men".
Of course the truth is, you're talking about you, and couching your criticism of yourself in verbiage designed to make it seem like you're just drawing an ignorant comparison based on your own personal failings and stereotypes about men, while simultaneously pretending to be enlightened about roles of women.
It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
There needs to be a masculist movement or something to counteract the "matriarchy and their filthy trial-lawyer myrmidons".
Actually, is it even OK to suggest that?
I know that this was meant to be funny, but it really isn't.
Although I would like to think we have evolved a bit, there are a few too many guys around here that view slashdot as their private tree-house, and are afraid that girls will give them cooties.
I was going to give this post a pass, but the misogyny in some of the comments in this thread is simply unacceptable.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I had a daughter, I would want her to be able to choose the career she wants, rather than be limited to ones that society determines are gender-appropriate. I would like everyone else's daughter to have the same choice.
Before anyone flames me, I would like to point out that men and women are indeed different, and there's nothing wrong with finding humour in those differences. Jokes like the ones above should have died out with the rest of dinosaurs...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
"What stereo type am I refering to when I talk about it on a genetic level?"
This one
"this is genetic predisposition to certain traits"
"You can attack me, but you have yet to state anything that makes my argument any less valid."
I didn't attack you, I asked a question. Why so defensive?
"I stated, in a round about manner, that the subtle assumptions that men make are the real slights."
While your "subtle assumptions" are valid right? Save that nonsense, thanks.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Encouraging anyone based on race or gender is prejudiced. Whenever there are criteria involved in a choice that are not merit-based, we intentionally cripple ourselves.
Not discouraging girls and minorities is one thing, but it's easy to overshoot, and start discouraging men and majorities in the name of not being exclusionary. This is possibly more stupid, in the case of discouraging majorities, because you limit the available pool even more.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
'Math Doesn't Suck' is done in the style of a teen magazine. It even includes a horoscope, cute doodles of shoes and jewelry, and testimonials from attractive young career women that use math at work. It focuses on fractions and pre-algebra and uses mnemonics like calling a reciprocal a 'refliprocal', because you just take the fraction and flip it upside down.
Degrading and condescending, indeed. While it is great that she's trying to get girls more interested in math, this is sending completely the wrong message. I think it's horrendous that society thinks the only way to interest teenage girls in things like math and science is to trick them into it with horoscopes and shoes. And math shouldn't be dumbed down by renaming things because words like 'reciprocal' are just too hard. Things like this disgust and insult me. I don't enjoy being treated like a less-intelligent species just because I don't have a penis.
*scratches head*
Odd. I've worked with women in my tech field for 22 years. I treat them with respect and have never had any trouble. Nobody in my area has any trouble with the women, except for one blatherskite who was fond of discussing their secondary sexual characteristics. He crashed and burned.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
The best math always is. It's hard, gives you a headache, you lose sleep trying to figure it out. But once you do you are astonished at how elegant it is and how it all fits together so beautifully. And it doesn't matter in the slightest what anatomy you have between your legs, or what your 23rd chromosome pair looks like.
I object to the word "mathematics" being debased to elementary-school arithmetic. But that's another matter.
...laura
Next thing you know they'll be targeting educational materials to fat people by using less word problems involving apples and more word problems involving Baconators. Well, you see, that's how they maximize profits - by identifying groups of people and exploiting their desire and insecurities.
It just so happens that women have gotten the worst end of it. You aren't pretty? You need some makeup like a clown! Still aren't pretty? Here are some diet pills! Still not? Show off your anorexic figure with these new clothes! What, men still don't love you? Then you need Cosmopolitan to teach you how to properly service and manipulate them.
Marketing is EVIL and it destroys love, peace, and all that is good in this world. Marketing to women is the most despicable thing on the planet and anyone who does so is Satan. Have you seen those Bratz dolls? They are little slutty dolls, now in BABY form... teaching little girls what's important in life! Being popular, getting men to like them!
If you don't buy our product, no one will love you and you'll be all alone! Boo fucking hoo - more people will really like you if you're not a consumer drone anyway.
Start changing culture, one person at a time, with your attitude toward this horse shit. Fellow nerds and outcasts: do you want a girl who is slutty, manipulative, and flaky or do you want a woman who can match your wit? Do you like painted up whores because society tells you that's what you should want? The problem is, you really can't have both at the same time.
Now, this book seems to have a genuine interest in expanding girls' horizons. I don't know if it's the right way to do it, but it's a lot better than another book on how to please your man.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Which bothers me just as much, honestly. I know a guy who would love nothing more than to find a nice career-woman to marry and raise a family for. It's all so depressingly hypocritical. Women are supposed to be allowed to have whatever career they want and be able to support themselves and be independent, but men aren't supposed to be allowed to take care of the home and family and be dependent on all these women who'd rather not spend their time raising children.
I know that this was meant to be funny, but it really isn't.
Lighten up!
[snip]
I don't know about the rest of you, but if I had a daughter, I would want her to be able to choose the career she wants, rather than be limited to ones that society determines are gender-appropriate. I would like everyone else's daughter to have the same choice.
I have a daughter. My lady works part time so she can be home with the wee one most days. We didn't base this on gender, we based it on income. If she made more I'd be home.
Before anyone flames me, I would like to point out that men and women are indeed different, and there's nothing wrong with finding humour in those differences. Jokes like the ones above should have died out with the rest of dinosaurs...
Oh wah. I showed my lady the post and she laughed. It was a joke, nothing more, nothing less.
Political correctness is the cancer that's killing
Trolling is a art,
Some women are obnoxious. Some men are obnoxious. Asshole behavior is not bound by gender.
The two female developers I work with periodically are quite competent, and neither has told me their life story.
um... lets just see if winnie marries a nerd. i doubt it. the simple fact is women want to marry a man with equal or higher education and should earn more money than them. men on the other hand don't care as much as long as the girl is pretty. there are basic evolutionary reasons for this, you won't get rid of it through attempts at social programming. as for marketing, isn't this push just another form of marketing? the only thing that matters in life is math!! please...its like pretending everyone should have an mba. girls that like math dont need this condescending book, and those that dont..dont either. as for being pretty, self improvement is a sin? everyone does it, math nerds included, including spending way too much time fretting over academics. its time for people to stop blaming everyone other than themselves. whats this obsession with portraying women as delicate flowers that wilt at the first sign of distress? yet they are also supposedly equal and strong women!!! come on, these messages of default weakness are the problem, its time to tell people to just grow a spine and some self control instead of telling them they are the helpless victim of everything which frankly has sexist roots.
Apparently women don't want to hear the right words.
That's not women. That's a certain subsection of the population and it comes in both male and female form. I should know. I teach computer skills for a public library. Some people are good with technical terms. Some people--well, for some reason, the correct terms really rattle them, so you need to describe what it is visually and then later start sneaking the words in so they pick them up and start using them without realizing it.
At least with phone call questions of the "Something is screwed up and I can't get it to do what I want" type, the non-jargon folks are sometimes preferable because they can accurately describe what they see on their screen. Being a jargon person doesn't guarantee you're using the correct term. (We have a patron who routinely confuses the terms hard drive and desktop. If you handle two calls from him in a day, your coworkers will buy you a drink.)
On a similar note, I remember when I had to work with a Male tech who would blather on and on and on about the greatest of Linux. Had to constantly listen to his most recent kernel mods, and how he configured Emacs to do something awesome.
... any day of the week.
I'd take a woman talking about her kids and her kitchen remodel over some guy and his Linux blather day in and day out
Hell, my MALE coworker right now talks about what HIS kids are up to at college, how HE's working with an engineer and contractor to remodel HIS bathroom. And on top of that, HE will sometimes discuss the latest issues HE's having with HIS father in a nursing home.
It's not the HE or SHE, it's the fact that people occasionally talk about their personal lives at work, and it's not always tech oriented. Just because I'm in IT, doesn't mean I live and breath it. Besides, it's oh so easy to not have to talk to someone about their personal life. You just say so.
Oh wait, I forgot. Since we're talking stereotypes anyway, Men in IT are socially inept. So I can't expect them to either a) hold a conversation about anything but technology, or b) have the social skills required to politely tell someone they don't want to hear about their personal life.
The problem is with a lot of the women, if you ask me. I'm a woman in the IT field and I like hanging with the guys I work with, we can tell off-color jokes and go out to bars together, and we do that sometimes.
;) but the point is, most women need to be treated a bit differently in order for them to feel comfortable, they just don't realize it. I feel fortunate that, for the most part, I am better friends with men than women, and I understand the way they think and act. I can enjoy being around 'the guys'. (My boyfriend feels fortunate too, LOL.) But I am an exception, not the rule.
The problem is when women demand to be treated the same and then are oversensitive to the way men are just being themselves around her. In order to be treated the same as men, you'd have to understand them and think like them. Women are made differently--equally, but differently. And most women should not only be treated as such, but should REALIZE that. Most women do not really want to be treated the way men treat their peers of the same gender, they just don't seem to realize that men have a different 'code of honor'. Women seem to think that men are always respectful to one another and have this very idealized and very wrong idea of what male/male relationships are like, and I'm guessing it's because men act differently around them. As a result, they get offended by the things men say and do when they're just doing what she requested.
Yes, wordy, I'm sorry--I'm a woman!
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10