Girls From Progressive Societies Do Better At Math, Study Finds (sciencecodex.com)

An anonymous reader writes: (edited and condensed)Research by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has found that the 'maths gender gap', the relative under performance of girls at maths, is much wider in societies with poor rates of gender equality. Published on Monday in the American Economic Review, the research shows that the performance gap between girls and boys is far less pronounced in societies that hold progressive and egalitarian views about the role of women. The researchers analyzed the relationship between maths scores of 11,527 15-year-old living in nine different countries and the Gender Gap Index (GGI) in their country of ancestry. The GGI measures economic and political opportunities, education, and well-being for women. The researchers found that the more gender equality in the country of ancestry, the higher the maths scores of girls relative to boys living in the same country. The findings were significant and robust even when the researchers controlled for other individual factors that may affect youths' maths performance. In particular, the results show that an increase of 0.05 points (or one standard deviation) in the GGI is associated with an increase in the performance of girls in maths, relative to boys, of 7.47 points -- equivalent to about one and a half months of schooling.

Comments

Because they do it at all

[kheldan]

Non-progressive societies don't encourage girls to do things like science and math in the first place, they expect them to adopt 'traditional female roles'.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

Non-progressive societies don't encourage girls to do things like science and math in the first place, they expect them to adopt 'traditional female roles'.

Should do a comparative study of marriage stability as well!

Perhaps women from such progressive cultures make terrible mothers and wives, perhaps men from such progressive cultures make terrible husbands and fathers...

Re:Because they do it at all

[dywolf]

doubtful

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers, because they actually want to do something other than be in the kitchen or on their backs. Girls in those types of households are not going to do well at math because they are expected to learn specific roles, that do not include it.

Personally I would take an engineering wife.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

doubtful

That's the beauty of the scientific method. It gives us a framework to actually test such things, so we don't have to rely on "well I doubt it, therefore you are wrong and we should not study this further".

Re:Because they do it at all

[TWX]

I expect that things like divorce happen in progressive societies because we allow the individual to leave a marriage, and we allow either individual to make the choice.

Societies that either do not let marriages end, or else restrict who can initiate such a divorce, or even societies where such a divorce is possible but where one party may end up without any of the resources gained during the marriage. All of these conditions either prevent divorce, formally restrict divorce, or otherwise make ending a marriage impossible or impractical.

Re:Because they do it at all

[ShanghaiBill]

This study already provides evidence that parents in progressive societies are better parents, because they are at least better at educating their daughters in math.

Disclaimer: When my daughter was in elementary school, she placed 2nd in the district in the Math Olympiad, but now that she is a teenager, she thinks I am a terrible parent.

Re:Because they do it at all

[narcc]

but now that she is a teenager, she thinks I am a terrible parent.

I'm not surprised. How many times has she pleaded with you to stop 'ruining her life'? How many times has she confessed that her 'life is over'?

Those are some pretty dramatic consequences! You must be some horrible tyrant who 'never lets her do anything'.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers, because they actually want to do something other than be in the kitchen or on their backs. Girls in those types of households are not going to do well at math because they are expected to learn specific roles, that do not include it.

Personally I would take an engineering wife.

Half of your combined salary will go on childcare.

Re:Because they do it at all

[tnk1]

Define "better parent". Parenting skills probably don't hinge on whether a child is a math genius or not, but rather on the children being provided the opportunity to be functioning adults and to have the opportunity to excel at whatever they are interested in.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. You’re so enlightened.
Except did you ever think that a woman would want to be a stay at home mother and raise her kids. Probably not, because you're so force fed progressive garbage that the actual wants of the woman are obsolete. It's a two ways street. Society currently force feeds woman that they need to be a working woman to be seen as strong and empowered, when some of the strongest woman I've seen gave of 6 figure jobs to raise their kids.

I bet you'd like an engineering wife, then she could pay all your bills and you can play video games all day. I like your word usage to "take", guess her wanting you is of little interest. Like a piece of meat.

One of my best friends growing up, she came from an evangelical conservative home with a stay at home mother. She works for NASA now as an engineer. Your stereotype views are pathetic and shallow.

Re:Because they do it at all

[cayenne8]

I'm not surprised. How many times has she pleaded with you to stop 'ruining her life'? How many times has she confessed that her 'life is over'?

Those are some pretty dramatic consequences! You must be some horrible tyrant who 'never lets her do anything'.

In the old days (not THAT long ago, say 20+ years back), this used to simply referred to as being a parent.

A parent is NOT there to be a child's friend.

I became great friends with my parents when I was in my mid-20's or 30's or so....but when raising kids, you have to sometimes be unpopular and be the rules maker and enforcer.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Jawnn]

It is stable. Fact. Nothing naïve about it.

Why do you think "stable" is a synonym of "good"?

Because it's pretty clear that's exactly what you meant, your disingenuous attempt to portray your original comment otherwise notwithstanding.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Stereotype much? My wife decided to stay home. She isn't unfulfilled. Her main complaint with doing so is it makes it harder to afford things. I'd encourage her to return to employment if she wasn't finding fulfillment staying home, but I'm not going to tell her to go drudge away for a nicer car or a bigger house while she pines away at the time missed with the kids like I do. Society nor I should tell her that she has to stay home, but they can f#@$ off telling her how to feel if she makes that choice. Especially when the pressure on that choice is an attempt to draw twice as much profit from the things my grandparents had with just one salary.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Hognoxious]

Bloody hell, I've got a sockpuppet and I didn't know about it!

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

Unless your country is progressive enough that childcare is either free or highly subsidized.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

... then, if both parents are engineers, more than half their income will be taxed to pay for others' kids' kindergartening

Re:Because they do it at all

[PopeRatzo]

Disclaimer: When my daughter was in elementary school, she placed 2nd in the district in the Math Olympiad, but now that she is a teenager, she thinks I am a terrible parent.

Welcome to being a parent of a teenager.

My daughter went through a similar period. She listened to terrible music, ran with kids I didn't like, and basically accused me of being Hitler x (Stalin + Pol Pot). She's now about to finish up her PhD in Math and is a great person (due mostly to my wife, I think).

As the father of a teenage girl, your role is basically limited to glowering at prospective boyfriends and handing out currency. Take heart. It gets better.

Re:Because they do it at all

[PopeRatzo]

Parenting skills probably don't hinge on whether a child is a math genius or not, but rather on the children being provided the opportunity to be functioning adults and to have the opportunity to excel at whatever they are interested in.

That's really true. Even beyond excelling at whatever they're interested in, I'm gratified that my kid grew up to be a kind, decent and generous person.

Re:Because they do it at all

[PopeRatzo]

Disclosure; my wife is from one such non-progressive cultures. She is a terrible cook, a terrible wife and a terrible mother. She is also terrible at math. And ugly.

You should hear what she says about you.

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

I am not sure what your statement has to do with the conversation. IF she wants to do that then it is her right, but generally a woman like that will be poorer at math...

Also I am an engineer. I like intelligent people, I dont need a woman to take care of me, and I dont want a woman that I have to take care of. I want a partner not a slave.

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

Did she come from an evangelical family, where the gender roles are all but set? If not then what are you trying to counter?

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

Praised for doing what is within their gender roles. There is a difference between evangelical conservatives and the normal religious conservative, which I think you are failing to recognize. Generally speaking evangelical conservatives want to force the old school gender roles, and blame pretty much everything on no longer having them.

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

Not exactly. For example, in Sweden it also goes to pay for health care, university level education, and other social programs while in the US much of that is coming out of your own pocket along with retirement savings. You could argue that it comes out even in the end or that maybe we even come out ahead in the US but that wouldn't be true. The average Swede has about 10% more disposable income along with about twice the amount of vacation per year.

Along with that Swedish families get 480 days of parental leave per child, - much of which is paid and can be taken anytime up until the child is 8 years old.

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

How so? The average cost is 11.666k per year.. That means we are only making a combined ~23k a year? Even at its highest, 18.773k would mean that 2 engineers are only making ~37k?

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

Actually no, I am a progressive. most of my family, evangelical Christians, are though.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

My point was that for people who are bound to be at the top of the middle class payscales, they would be made to contribute far more to the state treasury than their own costs pull out.

If the GP poster had referred to a family of janitors, it wouldn't be so. But he/she said engineers.....

Re:Because they do it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Reactionary positions aren't necessarily wrong. Those traditions weren't 'terrible', just rigid, and they were needed for society to function. The difference between survival and starvation depended greatly on the manual labor capacity of the family. Thus she was on her back or in the kitchen preparing food, and meanwhile he was out in the field maintaining the next harvest. This narrative of oppression needs to stop. It was hard for BOTH. Stop lying about history for the sake of your 'progressive' narrative.

This situation imposed on men just as much as it imposed on women. Back in those days, while men were considered head of the family, they were also held accountable for their wives' behavior. If she cheated in the marriage or was unhappy, it was HIS fault. Unfortunately, while we've 'liberated' women, the culture still holds men responsible for her behavior and choices, just without the power to do much about it (eg her body, her right, her choice, his responsibility). Society assumes that any negative outcomes for conflicts, sexual behavior, or face saving is his fault and that she's a victim. Feminists play this card up quite a bit

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

As ability to leave a marriage that isn't woking is encapsulated under "progressive" the stability of a marriages does not make a very good metric for evaluating the quality of the members of said marriage as wives/husbands, let alone parents as a function of progressivness.

You're likely to get terrible marriages that drag on because divorce is stigmatized, or financially untenable, showing up as false positives when measuring stability.

yeah but people call a marriage 'not working' for much more minor things. Its related to the culture of entitlement, laziness and generally being special snow flakes.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

Disclosure; my wife is from one such non-progressive cultures. She is a terrible cook, a terrible wife and a terrible mother. She is also terrible at math. And ugly.

You should hear what she says about you.

I do. All the fucking time.

Re:Because they do it at all

[GuB-42]

I think there is some truth in it.
In societies with a high gender gap, women are typically taught to be good mothers when men are more career-oriented. This not only make good mothers but also keep couples together because there is a real necessity since they have different roles.
In societies with a low gender gap both women and men do the same thing. And in western societies where career is often more highly regarded than families values, there will be more and more career women and less and less good mothers. Problem is, the reverse is not true for men : they are still expected to be career oriented rather than become good fathers. And because both parents can function independently, there is less insensitive for them to stay together.
Just look at what kind of example we give for "progressive" societies : almost always career women, almost never stay-at-home fathers. This is not a progressive society, this is a productivity oriented society with little regard for the family.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

My point was that for people who are bound to be at the top of the middle class payscales, they would be made to contribute far more to the state treasury than their own costs pull out.

If the GP poster had referred to a family of janitors, it wouldn't be so. But he/she said engineers.....

The family of janitors would require at least 3 janitors working for every one child in daycare. It would be more effective to have one stay-at-home janitor and the rest working.

This is where things break down badly; the 'entitled', middle classes have so little idea how the low-end of the pay-scale lives they think their 'engineer' lifestyles give them some kind of insight into how society functions.

Poverty in places like the US and Canada is just fucking massively worse than the poverty in any European country, maybe except some Eastern European countries, the extreme ends of which which still wouldn't be as bad as the extreme ends of poverty in Canada. This is why Bob Geldof can criticize Canada for not being ambitious enough in its foreign aid spending; because he imagines Canadian poverty to be about the same as Irish or British poverty.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

I think there is some truth in it.
In societies with a high gender gap, women are typically taught to be good mothers when men are more career-oriented. This not only make good mothers but also keep couples together because there is a real necessity since they have different roles.
In societies with a low gender gap both women and men do the same thing. And in western societies where career is often more highly regarded than families values, there will be more and more career women and less and less good mothers. Problem is, the reverse is not true for men : they are still expected to be career oriented rather than become good fathers. And because both parents can function independently, there is less insensitive for them to stay together.
Just look at what kind of example we give for "progressive" societies : almost always career women, almost never stay-at-home fathers. This is not a progressive society, this is a productivity oriented society with little regard for the family.

Indeed, just look at Japan with its non-progressive system and many stay-at-home mums with dads who spend an average 15 minutes a day with their kids... Thats not being a good dad.

Re:Because they do it at all

[jedidiah]

In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.

Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.

Re:Because they do it at all

[jedidiah]

It is also not true that women didn't do backbreaking manual labor. Maintaining a household in the absence of modern conveniences is no trivial matter. Even simple things like the laundry become a major chore. Modern people in general have no clue and can't relate at all. That's not getting into whether women worked on the farm or factory.

A lot of people have this "Father Knows Best" view of the past that didn't even exist for the working class then.

Re:Because they do it at all

[jedidiah]

Yeah, there's that. Every so often you will hear in patient forums about someone being abandoned by their spouse after a diagnosis. These people made a contract that probably included terms like "in sickness and health". You just shake your head and feel greatful that things weren't worse for you.

Re:Because they do it at all

[PopeRatzo]

I do. All the fucking time.

That's good. Please keep her busy until after the NBA finals.

Re:Because they do it at all

[frank_adrian314159]

Wow. No offense, but if you're pining for the time spent away with your kids, please go home and be with them. We want employees who are engaged, not pining.

Love,
Your company

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.

Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.

They aren't "claims". Those are the laws, policies, and the stats. You pay less in taxes in the US, but you're getting less in return and just having to pay somebody else (more) for those services. For health care, you're paying insurance companies and your paying with lower wages because your company is paying the insurance companies. Your either saving for your kids' college education or they're going into debt or both. Instead of the government managing a pension fund on your behalf, you have to pay into a 401K, IRA, or equivalent.

I guess if you consider health care, retirement savings, and college tuition for your kids to be optional expenses, then yes, you come out way ahead in the US.

I'm an IT director at a 100 person non-profit. I'm making a decent wage, but not a fortune. My wife works part time (less than 20 hours a week). We have what's considered to be an upper-middle class income. She was working very little when our kids were really young. So it's not like the lifestyle you're describing is foreign to me. But, by the time our kids get through college I'll be just a few years from retirement and I wish we were socking more away. We don't live extravagantly and we have virtually no debt. If 50+ percent of our income went to taxes and we didn't have to worry about health care costs, college tuition, or saving for retirement, I would take that deal.

I know lots of people my age and older that have virtually no retirement savings. 68% of working age people in the US are not participating in an employee sponsored retirement plan. Presumably some of them don't need to, but I'm guessing that's a small percentage. We are headed for a real crisis.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TemporalBeing]

In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers...

Until you realize that an Evangelical Conservative view a husband and wife are co-equals, differing responsibilities but equal and submissive to each other (Ephesians 5:21-6:4 and Genesis 2:20-25, among other places.)

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

In a progressive country like Sweden, 70% of the workforce is unionized so your janitors are probably making a decent wage. The degree to which their benefits are subsidized by engineers and the like isn't as much as you'd imagine. And just because your dual engineer income family might be paying in at a high rate now, doesn't mean that they both will still be healthy and employed for the remainder of their working years. Crap happens and they may well find that they are getting out much more than they put in.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TemporalBeing]

In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.

Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.

My wife can earn about the same as me. It's more efficient for her to stay home than it is for her to work. If she works part-time (20 hours/week normal for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 40 hours the remainder of the year) , then pretty much all of her income goes to childcare, we don't get to bank it. If she works full-time (40 hours/week for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 60-80 hours the remainder), then we still lose about half or more of her income between taxes and childcare, netting us a small amount; in the end, her time taking care of 3 kids is saving us more money than if she worked.

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

If daycare were free, what would your wife do?

My wife may have wanted to stay home anyway to be with the kids. She's lucky that she works in an industry where she can make decent money for part time work and she can take a few years off and still be employable. That's kind of rare.

There is a significant financial risk for women who do stay home. If something happens to their husband, - he dies or is no longer able to work, they're screwed. After a few years at home, it's going to be much harder to find a job that makes up for his lost income.

If a woman is dependent on her husband for income, it also puts her on unequal footing. Getting divorced if she's unhappy with the marriage is problematic since she's less able to earn a decent income on her own. If she had maintained a career that's not as much of a problem.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Darinbob]

I think the reason why so many in the US hate taxes and consider them to be fundamentally evil is that there is very low return in benefits. People in other countries that get benefits aren't as grumpy.

Re:Because they do it at all

[gweihir]

Well, so what if? We really have outgrown the need to produce as many offspring as possible by now. This dirt-ball is overcrowded, and individual freedoms and growth rightfully is viewed much more important in progressive societies than producing the next generation.

Re:Because they do it at all

[narcc]

this used to simply referred to as being a parent

Obviously. Anyone who's dealt with teenagers has heard all of those things I've happily put in quotes. Every teenage thinks their parents are horrible and often say those very things when confronted with the typical boundaries their parents have set for them.

I thought it was pretty obvious, but judging from the moderation and the AC below, the intent has been lost. I assume it's because neither you or the AC below have any experience with kids that age.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

Oh sure, crap can happen.

But **on average**, by nature of the "progressive" taxation system, of course those at above-median income will have to pay more, probably far more, than they take out.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Capsaicin]

Obviously...

Well I got it ... and laughed. :)

Re:Because they do it at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you find the clueless, loud, ignorant twit who's never had to raise kids ...

Is it ... you?!

Because the post you are responding to is obviously by someone who has heard it all and still maintains a sense of humor (which you perhaps never had).

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

Oh sure, crap can happen.

But **on average**, by nature of the "progressive" taxation system, of course those at above-median income will have to pay more, probably far more, than they take out.

But not necessarily more than they'd pay on their own for the same services if they were only available from private providers operating for-profit businesses. The wealthier you are, the less that is true but I'm guessing that even engineers enjoy the added benefits of paid family leave and more vacation per year that the more progressive society provides. Even though I make a decent income, it would be a net gain for me if my taxes were 50 percent, but I didn't have to pay for my kids' college tuition, our health care, save for our retirement, and a had a couple of extra weeks of paid vacation per year.

Besides, you don't get away from that issue in the US system even with the lower taxes. On average, a US citizen is going to pay more for health insurance than than they will ever get back in services, otherwise health insurance companies would go out of business.

Another benefit from a more progressive society is there is less of a gap between rich and poor in the first place so there is less need to subsidize. And finally, even the wealthy benefit when society as a whole is stable, healthy, and well educated.

Re:Because they do it at all

[sd4f]

That has an element of untruthiness to it, because it's noticed as a paradox that, as societies get more progressive and there's less gender 'inequality' in broader terms, women tend towards traditionally female occupations. Whereas, in countries that are deemed gender unequal, those places tend towards a lot more of a gender balance in traditionally male dominated fields, such as engineering.

The explanation is, that in societies where women can do what they want to do, well, they do, they're uninhibited to select occupations which they want, and do. In those countries which are deemed unequal, they tend to be poorer, and women tend to go towards careers that pay better.

There's a good documentary from Norway on this paradox; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs, and I think it goes a long way to explain this whole 'women in tech' issue and why it's such a beat up!

My suspicion is that what really is at play with a lot of these studies in gender equality is really socioeconomic differences. Poorer countries are generally deemed as having less gender equality, and part of the outcomes of poorer countries is that their education systems aren't going to be the best. Similarly, the countries which are deemed most equal also tend to be towards the top end of GDP per capita, so there's going to be a lot more funding for things like education.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Dragon Bait]

In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers, ...

I admit that I only know 4 evangelical conservative Christian families (which is probably dwarfed by the extensive studies that you've done); however, the women in the family tend to be well educated.

Family A: Mom has a degree in nuclear engineering. She worked the field until she realized that the public school system was completely failing her kids. She home schooled them until they entered high school. Their daughter is now studying to be a vet.

Family B: Mom has a degree in mathematics. She decided to become a teacher before home schooling her children. The oldest daughter went to one of the military academies. The younger daughter received a full-ride plus massive stipend to attend the state university.

Family C: Mom has a computer science degree. The oldest daughter is now studying to become a medical doctor. Youngest daughter is still in high school.

Family D: I don't know what mom's degree is in. The daughter completed her pre-law degree and is now in advanced studies.

My family is far from being an evangelical conservative house hold. My wife has a computer science degree and her entire division was laid off as a result of 9/11. The kids liked having her home for a change and seemed much happier. My wife eventually went back to work full-time. The kids weren't as happy after that. Your mileage may vary.

Like I said, I only know four evangelical conservative families so it is only anecdotal data -- but then again, I didn't see you even attempt to quote a study beyond the "everyone knows" category.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Solandri]

They aren't "claims". Those are the laws, policies, and the stats. You pay less in taxes in the US, but you're getting less in return and just having to pay somebody else (more) for those services. For health care, you're paying insurance companies and your paying with lower wages because your company is paying the insurance companies.

The same is true for taxes. You pay more in taxes, meaning you have less income. Or corporations are taxed, so they have to pay you a lower wage, or have to charge a higher price (meaning your dollar buys less - same thing as being paid less).

Once you realize this, you realize that it doesn't matter where in the economy you collect the taxes. The taxes could be borne 100% by individuals, or 100% by corporations, and the net effect would be exactly the same. See, the economy isn't about money. Money is just a way to enumerate what's going on, and it doesn't do it very well since the value of money itself can change. That's where most numerically literate people screw up - by trying to understand the economy in terms of money. That's like trying to take measurements in an experiment using a ruler which is always stretching and shrinking.

The economy is about productivity. Everything you consume has to be produced. There's simply no getting around that. If you buy a TV, someone had to make a TV. If you send a letter, someone has to deliver the letter. If you pay to have your house cleaned, someone has to clean your house. The only way you can increase your consumption (increase your standard of living) is if you increase your productivity. If the average person's productivity increases from producing 2 widgets a day to 4 widgets a day, their consumption can increase from 2 widgets a day to 4 widgets a day Usually the best way to improve economic efficiency in this manner is via market forces doing a random search of a ginormous solution space. Sometimes the best way is via government regulation warding people away from known low-value attractors and false plateaus and saddle points in the solution space.

Both philosophies - that the free market can solve everything, and that everything needs strict government regulation for the economy to function - are crap advocated by people who willfully ignore evidence contrary to their point of view. Usually the free market works. Sometimes it doesn't and government regulation can make it work better. The challenge comes in quickly identifying areas where regulation is needed, while not overreaching and trying to place regulations on areas where regulation would be counterproductive.

There's no simple solution to this problem, so there will always be failures - both on the market side and on the regulation side. In that respect, if you're seeing lots of market failures and lots of regulation failures, that's a pretty good sign that we've struck a pretty good balance between the two. If you only see free market failures, or only regulation failures (usually indicated by a black market springing up), that's a pretty good sign that you've got too little regulation, or too much regulation.

Your either saving for your kids' college education or they're going into debt or both. Instead of the government managing a pension fund on your behalf, you have to pay into a 401K, IRA, or equivalent.

FYI, Social Security isn't a pension fund. It's the Asian retirement system - where the elderly are financially supported in retirement by their kids - nationalized. That is, the money that SS recipients receive isn't money they paid into a trust fund and was held by the government for all the decades they worked. The money that current workers pay into SS is what's paid out to current recipients. There's a buffer of a few years, but if we phased out SS so current workers stopped paying in next year, the program would be short by several tens of trillions of d

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

"On average, a US citizen is going to pay more for health insurance than than they will ever get back in services"

Of course - and that is true of any type of insurance, anywhere. That's the whole premise of insurance. It can economically cover unpredictable perils, not routine ones.

"Another benefit from a more progressive society is there is less of a gap between rich and poor in the first place"

Why is that supposed to be good?

"so there is less need to subsidize"

Now wait a minute - don't these "progressive" societies get that way precisely by forcing the rich to transfer more wealth to the poor? In other words, that desirable (?) "smaller gap between rich and poor" gets that way precisely by means of subsidies.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

Well, so what if? We really have outgrown the need to produce as many offspring as possible by now. This dirt-ball is overcrowded, and individual freedoms and growth rightfully is viewed much more important in progressive societies than producing the next generation.

Yes, thats why the population of Muslims in Europe is growing and the population of native Europeans is shrinking. He who is represented in the gene pools of the future is he who has won. Freedom is irrelevant; live free, have no children, lose the future.

We have children to colonise, dominate and exploit the future. The human race is on a journey, its supposed to be from the bestial to the superhuman. So long as bestial humans outbreed the civilised humans the future is lost, the human race is lost and instead of our descendants being to us as we are to the apes, our descendants will be a mockery of the apes.

Re:Because they do it at all

[The Evil Atheist]

Yeah, but it hinges on a twisted definition of "co-equals". What does that even mean? Either you're equal or you're not. "Co-equal" sounds like ACTUAL political correct bullshit to me.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Mr.CRC]

Not in CA.

Re:Because they do it at all

[unimacs]

Pension funds work roughly same way. A mix of past contributions, investment income, and current contributions pay for current retirees. It's not an account that the employee has with a fixed amount of money in it.

The free market depends on a level playing field which rarely exists (at least not for long) without collective bargaining and regulation, - and then it's no longer a free market. Then you have a mixed economy which I think is a reasonable solution.

If I win the lottery, I can consume more, but have I increased my productivity? If I short sell a stock, have I produced anything? If I'm living off my parents' investment income, am I producing anything at all?

Yes, on average you have to increase productivity to allow more to be consumed but it doesn't mean that right mix of things are being produced and that the products and services are getting distributed effectively. I'd argue that large segments of society over consume while other large segments under consume. My belief is that GDP can go down and quality of life can still improve. How much of what gets produced ends up in a landfill? How much do externalities end up costing society?

And obviously, there is not a direct link between production and consumption. Just because 20 widgets are produced, doesn't mean 20 are consumed. And that's why the economy IS so much about money. Because money is the means by which widgets get consumed. If most of the money ends up in the hands of 1% of the population, it will be a big problem eventually. It's a problem because 1% of the population can consume only so many widgets. Increasing productivity does nothing unless the population as a whole has the means to purchase those widgets.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Mr.CRC]

Seriously, I'm an atheist and won't hesitate to criticize Christians' beliefs mercilessly in intellectual debate. But they are also people that I respect as human beings. The bigoted stereotyping here (by Progressives no doubt) is disgusting. But not at all surprising.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Mr.CRC]

Hopefully she at least puts out?

Re:Because they do it at all

[Mr.CRC]

Learn more about Japan.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TWX]

This is slowly changing.

When these precedents were set, women were much more dependent on men for general quality-of-life and for income than women are now. The two divorces that I am most familiar with did not feature women making-bank. In one the woman lost child suport and lost custody when she couldn't maintain employment and ended up with family, and kept cracking-up cars that the ex-husband had purchased so that she could take the kids to things. If I remember right, the child welfare people even got involved and discovered that the house she was living in was in a terrible state. She now technically owes child-support to him but basically can't pay it.

In the other case with no children, their careers were reasonably close to parity. She bought-out his share of the house (was paid-off already) at a bit of a discount because of the little difference there was in lieu of dealing with alimony or other long-term commitment or support.

Re:Because they do it at all

[goose-incarnated]

Yes, non-progressive societies like Libertarian-tinged Slashdot, where the mere mention of a woman gets the knuckle-draggers foaming at the mouth about SJWs.

You're the first one to mention it - of course, I *am* reading top-down... but still

Re:Because they do it at all

[Jane Q. Public]

For that matter, I'd like TFA to define "progressive". I'm not sure it's really being used as it should.

For example: Obama and cronies are "Progressives". Yet under their administration, income inequality has gone up considerably, gender pay gap is a big issue again, racial tensions are at a decades-long high, etc.

Maybe if we're talking about Progressive ideals, rather than what it's really like to live under Progressives, then it might make sense.

Re:Because they do it at all

[AmiMoJo]

People would be much more inclined to become full time parents if

A) It didn't damage their careers so much, because eventually they will want to go back

B) It was affordable, because these days a single good income is about half what you need to own a house and live a comfortable life with 1 or 2 kids

Re:Because they do it at all

[gweihir]

Wow, you are _really_ fucked in the head.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TheRaven64]

Obama and cronies are "Progressives".

Only from the perspective of the USA, which leans so far to the right that it's surprising that it hasn't fallen over.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TheRaven64]

There was a study a while ago (more than 10 years) which pointed at a self-perpetuating circle in the USA:

People expect the government to be incompetent. This makes it hard to hire competent people for government jobs, because no one competent wants to work somewhere that is organisationally incompetent (if nothing else, it will make it hard for them to get the next job). This means that, in the absence of competent people, even the competent government agencies trend towards incompetence. This then leads to people expecting the government to be incompetent, and so on.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

oh but it can! #feelthebern

Re:Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

I'm sorry - but after 8 years of an obstructionist congress preventing the president from doing a single thing he wanted to do - nothing that happened during his term gets to be blamed on him. You can't blame shit that was done on the person who wasn't allowed to do anything.

What Obama WANTED to do may have been good or bad, we'll probably not agree on that, but what he actually DID was sit in his office banging his head on his desk in quiet desperation as republicans rejected even proposals they themselves CHAMPIONED a few years earlier as soon as the dark guy suggested actually doing them.

Re:Because they do it at all

[thaylin]

Sorry but someone who is required to obey their husband, but their husband not required to obey them, are not co-equals, no matter how much you twist it.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Dr. Evil]

"It would be more effective to have one stay-at-home janitor and the rest working."

Most use an unlicensed daycare, or start one.

It's stunning to me that it can cost $2k/mo to keep a child in daycare, but early childhood educators earn $40-$50k.

Re:Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

>Half of your combined salary will go on childcare.

You're assuming GP wants children. You are also assuming that a wealthier household is better than one in which all the participants are happy and get a sense of accomplishment from a career.
Even if we assume you're right on the former, you are utterly wrong on the latter. It's better to lose half your combined income and have a happy wife than to come home each night to one who hates her life because (being human) she will invariably grow to resent you for it - and I won't blame her when she does.

Re:Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

Which is fine since they will still get to have more money at the end of the month than the people who pay less taxes, and that money will buy more things and their general quality of life will still be significantly higher than yours.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

Yeah, so what if so much of what they worked for is taken away. It's not like their own family could benefit from the money.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

"It would be more effective to have one stay-at-home janitor and the rest working."

Most use an unlicensed daycare, or start one.

It's stunning to me that it can cost $2k/mo to keep a child in daycare, but early childhood educators earn $40-$50k.

In North America my guess would be that the majority of the cost of childcare would be liability insurance.

Re:Because they do it at all

[myowntrueself]

Wow, you are _really_ fucked in the head.

But I'm having children. If you aren't then the future is mine! Mwahahahaaa

Re:Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

>Now wait a minute - don't these "progressive" societies get that way precisely by forcing the rich to transfer more wealth to the poor?

No. Well they GET that way through subsidies but they do not STAY that way through subsidies. See in economics there is something called the poverty-escape line. The exact figure is not a constant, it depends on the economy as a whole and the stability of society and the things you get free from taxpayers etc. etc. but basically there is a line of income below which it is just about mathematically impossible to escape from poverty or provide and escape for your children. Above that line the escape becomes possible and the further above it you go, the easier it becomes, until you reach the point where you enter the middle class (again something that can only be defined for a specific country in a specific time).
What progressive countries do with subsidies is to lower the poverty-escape line AND raise incomes of the poorest above it, so very soon everybody with the talent to escape poverty also has the MEANS to escape poverty and move into the middle class where they join the group of subsidizers. Only a tiny fraction remain in poverty (those who genuinely lack the capacity to ever do more than sweep a floor and such) and subsidizing them to at least a decent life is remarkably cheap because there are very little of them.

The line is, at it's most basic, defined as the minimum cost to have three healthy meals a day, a decent roof over your head, transport and other work costs covered + 10%.
Anthing lower than the part before the + and you are actually working at a loss, people like that will be die in poverty and so will their kids. Equal them and you just survive, it's impossible to make anything better. Add 10% and you can save money, invest money, protect yourself against unexpected events, get a better education (or at least get one for your kids). In short, with time and effort it becomes possible to join the middle class. The higher the plus becomes, the quicker and easier you can transition.

So if you reduce the costs part (say by subsidizing cheap, reliable public transport, or lots of paid parental leave so you don't spend a fortune on childcare) while increasing the income part (with grants) - then a lot more people are able to stop being poor and lift themselves up into the middle class. Once you get a middle class job, you don't keep getting subsidies, you subsidize others. That's when the price drops.

That said, Europeans have learned a lesson that Americans haven't. Universal plans are better than means-tested plans. Means-tested sound more just to conservatives but they come with several caveats. Firstly they cost more - this seems counter-intuitive but the burocratic structures you need to do the means-testing almost always costs more than it would cost to just give the thing to everybody and they are hugely invasive of privacy which makes them very anti-liberty. Secondly, they become hard to justify - people selfishly complain about subsidising others and fail to see the benefits of living in a society where people do not starve very often. That problem also goes away when you make them universal. Hardly anybody complains about a welfare program they benefit from themselves - and in fact this is the MORE just version. Hillary and Bernie had a big debate about this issue where she said something like "I don't want to give free college to Donald Trump's kids" - but Bernie is right, the best way to stop Donald Trump's kids from bribing politicians to take free college away from everybody is to let them have it too.
That's a key difference between US and European approaches to the welfare state and one of the major reasons why welfare is NOT a constant political hot potato in Europe like it is in the US. Because in Europe almost all welfare programs are universal while in the US it's almost always means-tested.

Re: Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

Their own family benefits from more money than yours does. That was literally the point. They have more money than you. Because you have to buy everything they buy for those taxes and you pay more than they do for them.

Re: Because they do it at all

[fche]

Yeah, but you see, I'm not envious toward those better off. I'm no worse off because of them, for example.

"... and you pay more than they do for them."

(Er what?)

Re: Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

You didnt understand the first part either or you would not have written such drivel in response.

Let me try again: Swedish people may pay a higher taxrate than you but still have more money to spend than you do. Those taxes save them far more money than it costs. Its like if you buy stock in a company and the stock price goes up. You may have spent money before but you have more than you would have had if you did not spend it.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Jane Q. Public]

Sadly, Obama has done lots of things.

And I, for one, am grateful for an "obstructionist" Congress in his case.

Re:Because they do it at all

[Cederic]

Still - I guess he means it's still fucking happening, as it has for decades
Too bad - Discriminating against men is bad. Where the fuck did he ask for women to be penalised more??
Basis - the fact that men are rarely the custodial parent is penalisation in itself, let alone the financial penalties, the difficulty enforcing visitation, the brainwashing vindictive vicious women do to their kids

Anything else?

Re:Because they do it at all

[yuriklastalov]

10-to-1 says this guy is an Islamophiliac

Actually no, I am a progressive. most of my family, evangelical Christians, are though.

Psst, Islamophiliac means "Lover of Islam," which as a Progressive, you almost certainly are. Anything that pisses off those evil Christians, amirite?

Re:Because they do it at all

[david_thornley]

Sure. My wife and I put a lot more into the system than we take out.

You know what? We can afford it. We also see our tax money benefiting our less financially successful and less medically fortunate friends and relatives.

Re:Because they do it at all

[david_thornley]

As a progressive, I like Islam less than the other major religions, and I dislike the culture of most Muslim countries. I enjoy pissing off the right-wing Christians, but it's much more fun to do it with references to the Bible and what Jesus was reported as saying and doing. I generally like left-wing Christians, and often only differ with them theologically. I don't know which progressives you hang around with, but the ones I hang around with generally dislike Islam and the cultures associated with it.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TemporalBeing]

If daycare were free, what would your wife do?

In our case, she'd still stay home. There's greater value in raising the kids yourself and then pawning them off to someone else to raise.

My wife may have wanted to stay home anyway to be with the kids. She's lucky that she works in an industry where she can make decent money for part time work and she can take a few years off and still be employable. That's kind of rare.

There is a significant financial risk for women who do stay home. If something happens to their husband, - he dies or is no longer able to work, they're screwed. After a few years at home, it's going to be much harder to find a job that makes up for his lost income.

If a woman is dependent on her husband for income, it also puts her on unequal footing. Getting divorced if she's unhappy with the marriage is problematic since she's less able to earn a decent income on her own. If she had maintained a career that's not as much of a problem.

My wife keeps up in her field, so staying home isn't really hurting her all that much. Even so, good financial planning makes a huge difference in that scenario - which sadly most do not.

But face it, those same things are a problem for anyone that is essentially unemployed for an extended period of time.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TemporalBeing]

If daycare were free, what would your wife do?

And as others have pointed out, nothing is truly free. Someone has to pay the workers to watch the kids, etc. Whether you pay for it yourself directly (private daycare options) or indirectly (taxes to fund public daycare options) - you still pay for it.

I'd rather have the lower taxes and make my own choice.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TemporalBeing]

Informative? That's the shine they show the world. When evangelical men get together on their own, they tell each other they're the rightful boss of their wives, that there is a hierarchy that goes from God through their pastor through them down to their family.

To put this correctly - the husband is the head of the household, responsible *to* God for *everything* and *everyone* in the household. The wife has a similar duty but not to the same degree - she is a check on the husband, but primarily responsible for herself and everyone else. So when it comes for Judgement Day (per Revelations), the husband has to answer for the entire household, not the wife.

Properly understood, this is *not* about power but rather responsibility and accountability.

Re:Because they do it at all

[TemporalBeing]

Sorry but someone who is required to obey their husband, but their husband not required to obey them, are not co-equals, no matter how much you twist it.

Created as co-equals (see the Genesis reference), but due to sin (Genesis 3) that balance was shift with the husband having final accountability (and therefore authority) before God. Obedience also shouldn't be demanded, and one should desire to obey the other. Read the references - it calls for both to submit to the other, not simply for one to lord it over the other.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

It must be nice, having so much unspent income, and no friends and relatives to whom you would rather support directly (more efficiently).

It must be doubly nice to support such a virtuous scheme whereby others who are not in your situation are nevertheless forced to play - and pay - along.

Re:Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

>Sadly, Obama has done lots of things.

He has signed fewer executive orders than any other president in history. He has been able to pass exactly ONE of the laws he campaigned on - i.e. the laws voters elected him to get passed.

> And I, for one, am grateful for an "obstructionist" Congress in his case.
I did say we would probably not agree. I assume you are at least even handed and hate republican presidents more because pretty much everything he DID do they did first and bigger. I see a lot of people here complaining about Obama "not enforcing immigration law", but nobody seems to blame Reagan for that, even though the actions for which Obama was blamed were instituted by Reagan and the policy has simply been continued by every president since then (including both Bush presidencies). Obama did nothing new there, it's been the official policy since Reagan, Obama merely thought that a republican had been right about something - apparently republicans hate it when you think they did something right.

Re: Because they do it at all

[Dread_ed]

So in the first part of your rebuttal you confirm, in no uncertain terms, leaving zero doubt, that Obama was an ineffectual president.

Then you try to create some plausible link between presidents separated by over a decade, all in some misguided attempt to bolste the appearance of your selected party.

Look dude, put down the pom-poms. These people you're putting faith in, they're screwing you. Teh have your head so messed up that you completely let them off the hook for being ineffective, blame dead people for their actions, and blind yourself to the harm ther did to our society all in the name of supporting business interests.

Don't be a worthless political zombie. If you're not in the top 1% of wealth holders, the government is not working for you. Helping them out by carrying their water, making excuses for them, and stirring up shit with other misguided idiots on the "other side" of the "political spectrum" doesn't help anyone. At best it reveals you as intellectually compromised. At worst you might actually trick some poor soul into believing in one of our so called political parties and create another zombie.

Not to be insulting, but you're exactly the last thing America needs. Wake up and smell the exploitation brother. You got mindfucked by great ideology, used by sociopathic power mongers. Get some distance and clarity.

Re: Because they do it at all

[silentcoder]

Yes. The American system is such that a congress full of crazy wingnuts can make any president ineffectual. Obama's problem was trying to be reasonable in a room filled with 400 toddlers throwing tantrums.

Re:Because they do it at all

[david_thornley]

Supporting friends and relatives directly is socially tricky, as we've found out. There's also some close relatives who have had some serious medical problems, and we could not have effectively supported them ourselves.

We're not forcing anyone to pay. If you don't like paying taxes, GTFO. Taxes are what we pay for civilization, and you don't get to enjoy the benefits without contributing if you can.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

"We're not forcing anyone to pay. If you don't like paying taxes, GTFO."

Haha, right. "GTFO" is not forcing.

"Taxes are what we pay for civilization"

That's rather circular of you.

Re:Because they do it at all

[david_thornley]

I'm not arguing in a circle. Civilization is not defined as a form of society that has taxes. Civilization is a form of society in which we have some stability, economic specialization, infrastructure, and some sort of protection against certain classes of bad things happening. It generally requires taxes of some sort.

So, if you want some sort of protection from thieves and people who would lie to you and trick you into buying and ingesting poison thinking it was food, a way to get from point A to point B, and other similar things, you want civilization, and if you have the ability you will be required to pay a share.

Re:Because they do it at all

[fche]

The circular aspect of it is that as we argue what aspects of taxation are legitimate - i.e., what are legitimate governmental functions - the retort comes that it is "civilization" that we fund. And what's "civilization"? The arbitrary list of tax-funded services.

Re: Because they do it at all

[Jane Q. Public]

The idea that Obama has been "reasonable" I find downright laughable.

I don't blame him for the things he tried to do and didn't.

It's what you seem to think are the "little" things, regardless of how his administration brought them about: a huge increase in mass surveillance, foreign policy seemingly designed to aid the enemy, and... how many crimes? That we know of?

Let's see. There was Clapper lying to Congress, Lerner lying to Congress, Holder lying to Congress, McCarthy lying to Congress, Holder in Fast and Furious, oh... and now a Federal judge has caught DOJ attorneys lying about the government letting in 100,000 (!!!) immigrants it never had any lawful authority to let in, and knew it.

That's just off the top of my head. How many other broken laws and Constitutional violations can we find if we really look? ALL of those people lying to Congress were direct employees of Barack Obama. He appointed them, he told them what to do. That's his job.

Let's not forget bombing whole families from drones, in violation of both U.S. and International law.

Maybe you don't think that's doing a lot. I do. And that's only a fraction of it... just SOME OF the things we've caught them at.

Everyone does!

[Anonymous Coward]

Girls do better at math in progressive societies, because everyone does better at math in progressive societies.

Re:Everyone does!

[thaylin]

Then why are there so many male engineers out of conservative societies?

Re:Everyone does!

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole article is progressive propaganda.

Girls are doing better in school nowadays because schools are engineered for girls. For example, most young boys do not have a 30+ minute attention span. They rather be DOING than taking in information and being strictly obedient to authority.

So girls can have their schools... they NEED it as a measure of self worth. Men don't for the most part. Remember than the world evolved mostly because of men... the explorers, the scientists, the engineers, the warriors, and the husbands. I am in no way diminishing the role of women. Far from it. However, women have had a role to play and they've been very effective at that.

"Progressives" like to tout their meaningless metrics (e.g. grades) but they don't want to talk about all the things that are lost in their utopian fantasies.

People need to educate themselves. Progressives are horribly uneducated. Their are just "indoctrinated". In the end, as "progressives" grow up, get jobs, get families, and have real responsibilities, they realize the error of their ways. This is always true.

So progressives... if you want to unleash your social experiments on the world, feel free to do so in your own house, but don't force the rest of us that don't agree with you. It should tell you something if the only way people follow your wishes is if you pass laws forcing people (e.g. Obama forcing schools to integrate bathrooms) or if you do it at gunpoint.

Re:Everyone does!

[Kierthos]

Just a shot in the dark here, you understand, but if it's a country that has limited opportunities for women to go to school (especially college), but still needs highly educated people for certain positions, then by default, it's largely going to be the men who are educated and trained for those jobs.

I mean, come on, that's a no-brainer. "Hey, in {insert country} where women aren't allowed to go to medical school, why are all the doctors guys?"

Re:Everyone does!

[gweihir]

At least fundamentalist conservative societies have far less of them or ones of far lower quality. Independent or analytic thought is not encouraged in those societies. It is absolutely critical in any STEM professional, regardless of gender however. (Even if some of the commentators here give the opposite impression...)

Re:Everyone does!

[Whibla]

For example, most young boys do not have a 30+ minute attention span. They rather be DOING than taking in information and being strictly obedient to authority.

Like most things attention span is something that can be taught, and improved. Just because someone doesn't want to concentrate doesn't mean they shouldn't, or that it's not a valuable life skill. Pandering to a pupil's wishes, much like spoiling a child, does them no favours in the long run.

So girls can have their schools... they NEED it as a measure of self worth. Men don't for the most part.

I honestly have no idea what you're basing this particular opinion on, but respectfully I disagree. There are many tools available to adults (in the case of schools read teachers) that allow them to make a child feel valued, be that formal grades, praise, rewards (physical, emotional, social, etc.), etc.. When used appropriately children, or most of them anyway, can learn that feelings of self worth come from one place only... themselves. Natural self confidence, rather than arrogance, and a balanced view of self is the ideal outcome for this 'social metric'.

Remember than the world evolved mostly because of men... the explorers, the scientists, the engineers, the warriors, and the husbands.

...And that has absolutely nothing to do with historical tendencies towards patriarchies or the traditional role of women... nope, not at all! /s

I am in no way diminishing the role of women. Far from it. However, women have had a role to play and they've been very effective at that.

A telling statement!

"Progressives" like to tout their meaningless metrics (e.g. grades) but they don't want to talk about all the things that are lost in their utopian fantasies.

People need to educate themselves. Progressives are horribly uneducated. Their (sic) are just "indoctrinated". In the end, as "progressives" grow up, get jobs, get families, and have real responsibilities, they realize the error of their ways. This is always true.

I clearly don't understand exactly what a "progressive" is, but I suspect I'd rather be one than a "regressive". As to grades specifically, they are simply a measurement of achievement, that achievement, for example, being passing an exam. It's certainly not meaningless, though one should be very careful about reading too much meaning into it. As for the second paragraph, the irony is so strong it's making my eyes water!

So progressives... if you want to unleash your social experiments on the world, feel free to do so in your own house, but don't force the rest of us that don't agree with you. It should tell you something if the only way people follow your wishes is if you pass laws forcing people (e.g. Obama forcing schools to integrate bathrooms) or if you do it at gunpoint.

This sentiment would presumably equally apply to racial equality too, as well as all other forms of discrimination which have been outlawed?

Well, I can't say I'm surprised you elected to post anonymously...

Re:Everyone does!

[kaatochacha]

Wait: In your world the only options are "Progressive" and "Regressive"? That's like saying the only political options are Conservative and Communist.

Re:Everyone does!

[Whibla]

I'd try not to read extra into what I wrote. Consider: If I said "I cannot come round on Tuesday, I'd rather make it Thursday" would you think that I meant that Tuesday and Thursday were the only days of the week?

Anyway, to directly answer your 'question', no, not at all. I was however implying that the AC I responded to was "regressive".

Helps boys too

[AmiMoJo]

There seems to be a correlation with boys doing better too. Of course correlation is not causation, but anecdotally teachers say that girls being more engaged in maths helps the whole class.

Re:Helps boys too

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right, that's group dynamics. The greater the cohesion of efforts by a group then greater the solidarity and benefits for all.

Re:Helps boys too

[AthanasiusKircher]

There seems to be a correlation with boys doing better too. Of course correlation is not causation, but anecdotally teachers say that girls being more engaged in maths helps the whole class.

Reminds me of a few studies done some years ago on gender-segregated classrooms for math. Girls in "all girls" classrooms did better than girls in mixed classrooms. But boys in "all boys" classrooms did NOT do better (and in fact did slightly worse, if I remember correctly).

At the time, I believe the study explanation was that girls (particularly at adolescent ages) tend to be more reserved in the presence of boys, so they didn't tend to ask as many questions when they were struggling in mixed classrooms. But in "all boys" classrooms, there just tended to be more goofing off and general tomfoolery going on, hence the worse results.

I would imagine that "less progressive" societies often tend to segregate boys from girls more and/or have classrooms where boys dominate everything (due to gender norms about girls being more submissive) and effectively turn mixed classrooms into "all boys" classrooms.

Now -- I mention all this knowing that there have been plenty of studies since then, and some have challenged or complicated these results. But given general adolescent behavior, it doesn't surprise me if having mixed classrooms with girls more engaged translates to boys doing better too.

Re:Helps boys too

[jedidiah]

It also created great tests scores in Math and Science.

Again, I wonder why the old Soviet republics don't do better on these metrics. The imposed equality with a vengance. They're the template for places like Sweden.

Re:Helps boys too

[gweihir]

Are sure sure did not? USSR mathematicians were world-class and leading the field in quote a few areas. Of course, that is in the past.

Re:Helps boys too

[ZorglubZ]

That is GPs point: they DID well, they aren't DOING well. That is; they excelled at science and math when they were forced to be equal under USSR rule, they aren't nearly as successful now.

Men's cooking skills

[MightyYar]

On the other hand, the women from those societies are far better cooks relative to the men. And laundry... my whites have never been so white!

Re:Men's cooking skills

[myowntrueself]

On the other hand, the women from those societies are far better cooks relative to the men. And laundry... my whites have never been so white!

Yeah they should also see if theres a correlation between looks!

The old song... "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife!"

"Man your wifes so ugly"
"Yeah she's ugly. But she sure can cook!"

Re:Men's cooking skills

[MightyYar]

If you are going to get this grant, you need to come up with better than that. First, define "progressive" such that it includes proficiency in domestic skills by both partners. Then look for statistical correlation with any single domestic skill (in this case, "cooking"). NOW, you're playing with power.

That is exactly what this study did, by the way, only they used "education" as the definition and "math" as the correlated variable. Educated girls are better at math! Wow!

Re:Men's cooking skills

[jedidiah]

My wife and mother-in-law specifically can't cook because of "progressive" feminists notions imposed upon by a well meaning grandparent. Both were actually discouraged from cooking lest they become housewives.

Whereas I was taught to cook because of a more conservative notion of self-reliance.

Practice makes perfect! News at 11.

[Narcocide]

Discover how hundreds of millions of women elevated their intellectual capacity beyond that of their stone-age ancestors using just this one weird trick !

Study Authors need to learn math

[jd.schmidt]

I have seen the data, yes girls do better in math in progressive societies, relative to boys, but they also do better in language and all areas of schooling relative to boys. In other words, girls do better in school overall and of course one of the measures of a progressive society is how well girls do in school. Thus they found that in societies where girls do better in schools, they do better in math also. What people should ask is how to get the best performance out of boys and girls and which countries have found a formula for that.

Re:Study Authors need to learn math

[jd.schmidt]

I know, it is pretty awful of me to want to focus on how to help boys and girls do better in school. But it is the case that one of the defining characteristics of "gender equality" in society is how girls scores in school relative to social averages. There is math involved in understanding the consequences of feeding data back into your model.

Re:Study Authors need to learn math

[epyT-R]

Critical fact: the world does NOT revolve around your personal life experiences.

Tell that to social justice activists..

Re:Study Authors need to learn math

[BobSutan]

This couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact school curriculum and testing standards were restructured in the late 90s to cater to girls' strengths. Nope, not at all.

No shit sherlock?

[ilsaloving]

If this were The Register, this article would have the no-shit-sherlock icon posted all over it.

I bet research would further demonstrate that girls do better in pretty much everything, from STEM to driving, in more progressive societies. That's what happens when you don't treat females like cattle.

Re:No shit sherlock?

[Art Challenor]

You DO need these studies because occasionally the data is completely the reverse of what common sense would dictate. This "cold mice don't loose weight" being a case in point :https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/02/19/2311250/study-mice-gain-weight-in-cold-temperatures-due-to-gut-changes

However, when the results do so accurately match common sense, what we don't need is a news item. There is still truth in the "dog bites man" non-news.

Re:No shit sherlock?

[epyT-R]

Western society does not treat women like cattle. That would be islamic countries, who, for reasons that make no sense, are still defended by the left despite their oppressive treatment of women.

Re:No shit sherlock?

[david_thornley]

Muslims tend to be religious conservatives, which would be a good fit for the Republicans except that the Republicans reject them. The Democrats pick up some minority groups that typically don't have Democrat values because the Democrats are more accepting of those minorities, and they vote for their own good rather than their ideology..

Re:Math you incompetent twit!

[__aaclcg7560]

Ebonics is fine for California but for the rest of the world stick to the proper American MATH!

You need to go back to school. Ebonics is a dialect of English. Math is not a dialect of English. As for proper American MATH, it uses Arabic numerals and Algebra (Arabic "al-jabr" meaning "reunion of broken parts"). God is great!

Gender equality vs. marriage stability

[mi]

Except there is no data on that troll hypothesis

Huh? Of course, there is... The average duration of marriage in a country and the number of children born to single mothers is quite well documented in most countries. In fact, it is probably better documented, than the pupils' Math-achievements.

A number of such studies have been done, in fact — but all I'm hitting are "paywalled" results, for some reason. As a matter of fact, TFA does not link to the actual study either... Khm...

Re:Gender equality vs. marriage stability

[PopeRatzo]

The average duration of marriage in a country and the number of children born to single mothers is quite well documented in most countries.

If you look at those studies, what they actually say is more along the lines of, "In progressive societies, women are not considered chattel slaves and can actually divorce abusive husbands without being set on fire or having their heads chopped off."

There are societies in the world that are not becoming more progressive. You could probably find your way to one, but they'd almost certainly drag you through the street by your heels before making you the star of a beheading video.

Re:Gender equality vs. marriage stability

[dywolf]

so you're saying that in more regressive societies that frown on feminine independence and advocate staying in oppressive marriages...that more women stay in marriages they might rather leave?

earthshattering news doctor.

Re:Gender equality vs. marriage stability

[dywolf]

to be clear, you are equating "good wife" or "good mother" with "doesnt leave abusive husband."
holy fuck you are stupid.

Jumping to conclusions

[Hentes]

Most commenters jumped to the same conclusion but that's not what the study says. This is a correlation, the arrow of causation can go either way. Maybe the smaller pay gap is the result of the smaller skill gap and not the other way around.

Not really shocking, although not very telling

[Derekloffin]

The GGI itself has built into it a education metric so that an element of education improves along with it isn't very shocking. However, there is also the matter of whether this is an actual improvement or not. This is a gap closing, not an overall improvement. That article is careful to add in the 'relative to boys' all the time, which could also happen by the boys getting worse scores, not the girls going up. Same with the GGI, it a gap measurement, not static comparison (and only a one way comparison at that, not even attempting to measuring disparities in the other direction). Impossible really to tell unfortunately as testing methodology and such is obvious quite different between countries.

Expectations

[lazarus]

It may simply be a matter of expectations. Gartner recently presented a lecture about creativity at the workplace. The people who were the most creative in studies were the ones where there was a high expectation of creativity from them. I believe the same could be said for STEM as all of these areas require a high degree of creativity to be successful.

In short, in a more developed more progressive society, girls are *expected* to do better at math, so they do. It is a case of people rising to a challenge -- not being told they "can't" do something.

From the not-surprising-news-department...

[sjbe]

Research by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has found that the 'maths gender gap', the relative under performance of girls at maths, is much wider in societies with poor rates of gender equality.

Shocking. Societies that let girls study math results in girls who are better at math. Who would have guessed?

Did we really need a study to confirm this?

Re:From the not-surprising-news-department...

[tnk1]

No. We really didn't.

However, I would love a big fat research grant to run a study whose conclusion is to pat myself on the back by stating something obvious. Therefore, I approve of this sort of study and wish to see more. I was also thinking of a study that shows that in progressive societies, females drive considerably better than those in say, Saudi Arabia. My conclusions and paper are already written, I just need some money and to collect a little bit of random data to make pretty graphs with to publish.

I was thinking that with enough grant money, I could even pay a few other social scientists a good wage and possibly even write some more papers which we would then secure grants in order to embellish with some graphs and tables based on actual data. I was thinking of writing my next paper on logic. "Tautologies: True or True?"

Nit Picking

[medv4380]

SAT scores still show males performing better at math. This PISA test appears to only have data on kids at the age of 15. Which is unfortunate because that means the vast majority of girls are done with Puberty at 14, but a significant portion of boys that started puberty at 14 are sill in stupid puberty stage. Maybe if this test was done on a range of age groups and displayed the same gap, but no it's just 15 year old kids.

Talking for the sake of talking

[aoism]

Has the bottom of the barrel been reached so quickly that in order to have something to belt on about, the tumblr feminists are pressuring universities to fund studies that come up such obvious conclusions as 'When your society doesn't prohibit your Women from studying, they do better in school' ? What's next ? 'When there are more Men than Women, birth rates decline' ? 'Incidents of rape dramatically increase when drunk in a room with rapists' ?

Being engaged in class

[Solandri]

I took my nephew to volleyball practice last week. There were only 3 boys in the class, and for whatever reason the instructors put them into their own group during practice. Their group performed the worst at practice - the three of them goofed off, fought with each other, didn't listen. The girls' groups OTOH went smoothly, with the instructor hitting the ball to a girl, her hitting it back, then moving to the end of the line so the next girl could hit.

Then practice was over and they played a game. I was surprised to see that the boys were focused and played together well as a team. The girls meanwhile spent a lot of time talking with each other, and three of them ended up being hit by the ball because they weren't even watching it.

It's just one anecdote so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it. But I'm starting to form the opinion that girls do much better in structured educational environments where the kids sit quietly in place while the teacher dumps data onto them, while boys do better in immersive, chaotic trial-and-error environments where they learn by doing and experiencing. Unfortunately, it seems schools are busy eradicating the latter type of instruction in favor of the former.

Re:Being engaged in class

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been my experience over the last two decades. You'll also note that in your example the teacher wasn't even with the boys, as well.

Generally speaking (there's always a few exceptions in every grade of every school) you want boys to learn, you have them stick their hands in the subject matter as directly as possible. They learn best by *doing*, whether that's having them take apart a pump to explain hydraulics, or putting together a circuitboard. The data just needs to be made available to them or explained as they're doing it; it will stick and fast at that!

You want girls to learn, you have them copy it into a book while walking them through the formula, but outside those exceptions a lot of them might outright quit if forced to stick their head in an engine. My sister in law's one of those not-so-uncommon exceptions though, and there's no one I'd trust more with my skidoo.

Re:Being engaged in class

[grimfate]

I have heard a lot over the past while about there being a difference in how boys and girls learn best, so I don't think you're necessarily barking up the wrong tree, although there are apparently several different ways to learn something, so it might not be as simple as "all boys learn this way and all girls that way".

Re:Being engaged in class

[AmiMoJo]

It's not a boy/girl thing, it's just that different kids learn differently. Teachers have known that forever. Some people learn by practical application, some by memorization and reading, some by exercise.

That's why people study different subjects, some of the more practical and some more theoretical, some more research based, some with lots of long form writing etc.

good

[argStyopa]

Now, finally perhaps the SJWs will focus their ardor where it belongs: on improving the lot in life of the 2 billion women treated ACTUALLY LIKE SHIT, instead of trying to fix the (dubious) "hardships" women face in the developed world.

Re:good

[Boronx]

If troglodytes like you had their way, we wouldn't have a progressive society. You think we got here because you assholes woke up one day and decided on magnanimity?

Imagine the scene: London, 1923

"By Jove I am feeling noble this morning. It's past time to do something for the ladies. These little tarts really have been quite good for many a century. Cooking, fucking, cleaning, and generally being pretty to look at more ore less.

Best of all, they never ask for anything, so I shall give them some freedom. Not every freedom, of course, heavens no.

Thank goodness there are no SJWs lurking about or I would have to call it off."

Re:good

[argStyopa]

I grew up in the US upper midwest.
If anyone in the late 19th century or the early 20th century had suggested that women weren't equal partners or didn't work as hard or harder than the men in their families, EVERYONE (men & women) would have laughed at you.

Re:good

[Boronx]

Good. That was generally not the case, though.

Re:good

[david_thornley]

I didn't grow up in the late 19th or early 20th century, but that was a period when the laws and mores were fairly strict on gender roles. Women didn't vote or run for office. The man was the head of the family, and women did not typically have responsible roles off the farm or whatever (the upper midwest was heavily agricultural in that period).

Is this a surprise?

[William Baric]

"Progressive" societies have school systems adapted to girls (based on socialization and cooperation instead of individuality and competition, also based on a passive and quiet environment instead of an active environment). More than that, "progressive" societies will change what is taught and how it is taught in order to make sure girls can succeed.

For boys, school is now as interesting as romantic comedies are for men. So the result is not surprising.

Missed opportunity

[Solandri]

I was gonna post pretty much the same thing. It's pretty common that boys outperform girls at math, but girls outperform boys at reading. I assumed summary was just repeating an interesting highlight from a general study, and read TFA only to find out that was the extent of the study. I think it would've been more insightful to see if the boy/girl inequality in reading mirrored the pattern for math, or if it followed a completely different pattern.

As any systems engineer can tell you, weighting one control function (affirmative action) can help return a system to a desired state more quickly (in this case, equality between boys and girls). But this by design creates an underdamped system which will overshoot your desired state, or even arrive at a stable state offset from the desired state. You have to be ready to remove the weighting when the system begins to get close to the desired state so as not to overshoot, and allow it to quickly stabilize at the desired state.

Unfortunately, that isn't happening. TFA is another example - taking one of the few (only) areas where girls still lag behind boys and highlighting it as something which needs to be corrected, while ignoring that girls have far exceeded boys in all other areas. There's always going to be some natural variance with any system. If you insist that one group in that system never lag behind another group, that's not going to result in equality. You're going to end up with a DC offset where that first group never lags because its average is so much higher than the other group's average. i.e. You're going to create a huge inequality opposite the one you were originally trying to correct. That's pretty much the state we're currently in, with girls far outperforming boys in all aspects of education except math. These educational programs favoring girls should've been dismantled two decades ago (date on the CBS article is 2002).

Re:Missed opportunity

[UnderCoverPenguin]

My daughter's experience in K-12 school (she's now an engineering student at a nearby university) was that girls are still being told that STEM careers are not appropriate for girls while boys are pushed to excel at STEM subjects. So, girls were encouraged to focus more on social, language and arts subjects. Those girls who expressed interest in becoming teachers were told they would need to study more match and science than other girls. And those girls that expressed interest in STEM subjects were encouraged to consider teaching, instead. The stated rational being that those subject and careers were more in line with girls' natural talents - and they wanted to help the girls prepare for their best opportunities for success..

(Of course, my daughter could point to her mom as an example of a successful engineer. And when her councilor tried to point out girls still face very significant challenges in STEM studies that boys don't, my daughter's response was "Only people like you trying to discourage her.")

Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion

[s.petry]

You just stated that stay at home moms are "slaves". Good grief, how do you not see the horse crap spraying out of your head at this point? How do you breath through all the manure?

TFA states that women are smarter in Math in progressive countries, but there is a missing fact that the majority of women choose not to work in STEM fields in those same countries. TFA is sporting a meaningless statement to support a positive progressive appearance, instead of the reality. People like you buy right into the delusion.

Re:Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion

[jedidiah]

I looked at that Gender Gap Index and I was intrigued where the ex-Soviet countries fell. They were VERY egalitarian but they rank poorly on that list. It really makes me wonder what's feeding that chart. These kinds of things often end up being highly skewed by a particular metric that may or may not be all that relevant. Examinations like this also tend to magnify the negative and ignore the positive.

The whole thing seems meant to feed someone's ego and political agenda.

Re:Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion

[s.petry]

Why is it that you can only talk about the extreme minority of "raising rich men's kids"? Why is it that you can only paint being a parent as this pathetic lowly task? Is there any job more important than raising the next generation of humans? No, but people fall into the delusion trap because they are told that the only thing that matters is having stuff that you buy from a store.

You don't have to think very hard about the debate to figure out that someone, mainly the consumer class, has been getting fucked over by this rhetoric for decades.

Men are completely incapable of growing a baby inside a uterus and giving birth, they are also incapable of breast feeding that baby. Meanwhile women _DO_ have a choice of having kids and raising a family. They also have a choice of working and getting educated. Discrimination laws already exist, and have for nearly half a century covering all possible aspects of work and education equality. Men are the ones given no choice (because "biology"), yet they are consistently painted as the evil oppressor. Delusion is rampant in this country.

Re:Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion

[thaylin]

Actually I did not. I was addressing the comment that I would just stay at home and be a kept man, not that stay at home moms were slaves in general. How about stopping it with the strawmen.

Re:Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion

[yuriklastalov]

Is there any job more important than raising the next generation of humans?

Of course there isn't, which is why it must be entrusted to the state to perform the task! Just think about how badly the previously unregulated parenting regime has done over the years.

You don't have to think very hard about the debate to figure out that someone, mainly the consumer class, has been getting fucked over by this rhetoric for decades.

We don't talk about that anymore, Comrade. Economic inequality pales in comparison to the scourge of the Patriarchy. In fact, since the Patriarchy is directly responsible for creating the current economic situation, once we crush the Patriarchy by crushing the family structure which created it, the situation of economic inequality will solve itself and we'll all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

It is funny though, that the most vocal and active Progressive/Feminists are all upper/upper middle class. I couldn't possibly see how they could stand to gain by crippling the underclasses with a degenerate Marxist ideology like Feminism. Surely there has never been a revolutionary ideology that was co-opted or has existed solely for the benefit of its proponents.

Re:Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion

[s.petry]

Thanks for the humor, I laughed out loud at some of your sarcasm!

Of course there isn't, which is why it must be entrusted to the state to perform the task! Just think about how badly the previously unregulated parenting regime has done over the years.

Actually the State is responsible for raising the majority of millennials. The overwhelming number of poor kids in and from single mom houses is also because of the State You may have intended to imply as much, but I didn't see it.

It is funny though, that the most vocal and active Progressive/Feminists are all upper/upper middle class. I couldn't possibly see how they could stand to gain by crippling the underclasses with a degenerate Marxist ideology like Feminism. Surely there has never been a revolutionary ideology that was co-opted or has existed solely for the benefit of its proponents.

The Russians used to call a certain type of person a "Useful Idiot". A century of government controlled education has bred a majority of them.

Re:Wait. I thought there was no difference

[jedidiah]

Not at all. I see how the kids are indoctrinated around here. The boys are pushed into football and the girls are all trying to be cheerleaders. Girls from non-immigrant families are not encouraged to excel in academics. Some of the non-immigrant parents even show disdain for parents that encourage academic excellence.

Re:Math you incompetent twit!

[Krishnoid]

God is great!

Math is hard!

Re:absurd studies that waste the taxpayer dime.

[Krishnoid]

I damned sure didnt see a penny for my study on the gap between girls who study english in a dark room with eleven scorpions and boys who study english in a fumigation tent.

I don't know why you'd need a special grant to just observe students in the temporary overflow classroom trailers after lunch on chili day.

Gender gap index is crap

[GuB-42]

From wikipedia :

The assumption is that women are strictly disadvantaged compared to men and as such, only measures where women are traditionally disadvantaged to men are used. Information about gender imbalances to the advantage of women is explicitly prevented from affecting the score.

You can't get more biased than that.

Ant the criteria are :

Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment
Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education
Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures
Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio. In this case parity is not assumed, there are assumed to be less female births than male (944 female for every 1,000 males), and men are assumed to die younger. Provided that women live at least six percent longer than men parity is assumed, if it is less than six percent it counts as a gender gap.

The first 3 are fine but WTF about the 4th one. The situation here is better for women so let just bias the score... More importantly, one of the main reason women stay alive longer is because men tend to have more dangerous jobs, do more unhealthy activities and take more risks. In other words, the gender gap itself cause a pro-woman bias in life expectancy. The best country by GGI (Iceland) and the worst (Chad) have about the same difference (4-5%).

Re:what about east asian girls?

[Mr.CRC]

Almost the entire Electrical Engineering grad. student population was Chinese women and a few of their boyfriends when I was in college and by some twist of fate had the good fortune of winding up hanging out with them most of the time. I dated a Chinese girl who was a doctor studying for some speciality. They were adorable and didn't have any gender war baggage. Just straight human beings. It was so easy to just be. And the food! They taught me to cook with them. It was a good time. I was even an undergrad. (but older than most). They didn't give a shit.

My experience visiting in S.E. Asia for some time, practicing in Buddhist monasteries, and spending time in predominantly Asian parts of the SF Bay Area is similar. The Asian born ones, at least, are just people. Whereas Americans are all hung up on this identity shit.

Re:Gender Gap Index

[Zontar The Mindless]

That's not even a half-rhyme for "Yemen".

Something is wrong with the data

[TheSync]

Here is the earlier ungated version, which claims that in Chile girls do better at math than boys, but this reference says the opposite: that boys do better than girls in math in Chile.

Regardless, if you look at the scatter plots in the report, you can see that while there may be a trend, it is a weak one with a great deal of outliers (like Iran, where supposedly girls do better than boys in math, but clearly not a "progressive society").

Re:Math you incompetent twit!

[Whibla]

... but for the rest of the world stick to the proper American MATH!

Why on earth would I, as someone who lives in the 'rest of the world', want to speak American? I already speak a native language, called English, and in English we call it maths, which is short for mathematics.

Wow!

[kaatochacha]

A whole 1. 5 months. Why, we're on the verge of revolutionizing education as we know it!