And the 2-3 year old girls "in their pink outfits" expressed a desire to be clad in pink? Even if they did go to the store and select a pink outfit, this wouldn't necessary reflect a neutral choice as from a very early age clothing is seperated by color - pink for girls, blue for boys. Also, rowdy behavior by boys is fairly accepted. If a girl acted in the same manner, she would be seen as a tomboy and would probably be more harshly punished.
Despite what I have argued previously, I'm not saying girls and boys have no innate differences. I just think we overlook the power of socialization. They would probably behave differently in a neutral society, but to what extent, no can can say for sure.
You are absolutely right. Some men would want to stay home with their children but may shy away from doing so because of the scorn that they would inevitably receive. I sympathize with these men; sexism hurts both men and women. Yet, it's still true that most men simply do not want to stay home with their kids, and feel that their wife, and not they should be doing so.
Also see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171601&cid=142 93261. In it, I explain why women choosing to leave work and have children does not explain the vast difference in the number of female and male partners - 9 to 1 or more. This does account for some of the difference, but female associates are given different and discriminatory standards that require a higher level of competancy and motivation to achieve partnership. This view that all or most women decide to leave work to care for their children also leads to discriminatory promotion practices as employers assume that female employers are going to have kids, even if they have no intention of doing so.
As to your view about socialization, my own experience contradicts your view. My parents never pushed my sister to play with barbies or dolls. For the first few years of her life, before she entered school and was influenced by her peers, she played with toy trucks and trains, and had no dolls. When my parents took her to a toy store, they let her choose what she wanted without influencing her decision- and the toys she chose are considered to be for boys. As soon as she entered school, she began desiring dolls and Barbies. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume this was caused by socailization from her peers.
Likewise, one of my Professor's children was brought up in the same environment. Despite the fact that he was a boy, he played with barbies and other dolls for years. Don't ignore the power of socialization. Just becuase it's so widespread and seemingly inocuous doesn't mean it isn't there. Also, check out Foucault's writings.
The problem is that women are in essence given the choice of having children or a good career with advancement opportunities. Men aren't required to make this choice- they can have both. While it is true that women can have kids without staying home and that their husband can stay home with the kids, this doesn't happen for several reasons. First, there is a social stigma against women who have children and use day care rather than staying home with the child in his/her infancy. Secondly, and more importantly, very few men are willing to stay home with the kids and sacrafice their career. Society doesn't expect them to do so, and by and large, they aren't willing to. Women on the other hand, are expected to have children, and to stay home and care for them.
The choice women make to have children and to stay home, and to care for their children isn't made in a void. Societal pressure and the unwillingness of men to take equal parental responsibility accounts for much of the decisions that we view as reflecting women's true will. We should recognize that societal discrimination affects the choices people make.
The studies I cited did provide some evidence why discrimination was the lilkely explanation for the differential enrollment figures in CS. I just don't have access to the studies at the moment, and unlike some on Slashdot, I don't want to just make stuff up.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171601&cid=142 93261 for my reasons for believing that discrimination is a factor in the differential employment of women as partners in law firms. It's based on discussions I've had with female attorneys, who I believe are accurately reprenting their experiences.
I understand your position and I think that is one source of discrimination. However, from my numerous conversations with female attorneys, I have been told that this is not the only discrimination they face. As you state, I agree that women who decide to leave the workplace to care for their children for several years are put in a very difficult situation and are in essence giving up the opportunity of partnership. I also think that it is unacceptable that women are expected to make this sacrafice, while men are not. Women who don't have children are seen as being cold and uninterested in a family, and those who decide to work despite having kids are considered bad mothers. The same stigma does not apply to men.
Having said that, many women choose NOT to have children and still face discrimination. The female attorneys I have spoken with describe the situation as this: Female associates are held to different standards than male associates. Men are expected to be rutheless and ambitious, while women who act in the same manner are considered bitchy. This attitude is reflected in sex discrimination claims when women sue who are denied partnership. Secondly, women are held to a higher standard than men. It is not impossible for a woman to become partner but she has to be more devoted than a man, more intelligent, work longer hours etc. In addition, she has to act in a more deferential manner so that she is not seen as as bitchy, while being aggressive enough so she is seen as highly competant. Because of these higher, and discriminatory standards, it's generally very difficult for female associates to become partners.
Sorry, for the crappy formatting. I accidentally chose HTML formatting. Here's a readable version:
You're assuming that women are choosing not to enter Computer Science because they simply have less interest in the area. While this may be, it doesn't explain the whole story. There are many areas where women show great interest and are still denied equal access. This, and not women's waining interest in CS most likely explains the decline in female CS majors.
The legal profession is a good example of the discrimination the poster is referencing. Over the last few decades, women's enrollment at law schools has expanded dramatically. Most law schools now have equal or higher enrollment of women than men. I don't believe this can be fully explained (or explained) by greater interest in the Law on the part of women. Rather, Law Schools have made efforts to make the environment open and inclusive. While women faced discrimination in the 70s and 80s, Law schools now provide a far more equal teaching environment.
Yet, despite this increase in enrollment, women attorneys have been leaving the field. While nearly 50% of new associates are women, less than 10% of partners are female. This can't be blown off as being due to lack of interest. Associates at large firms put in 60+ hours a week, and are surely commited to the responsibilities of partnership. Despite this, men are dispraportionately chosen for the highest paying positions. As in CS where women are often not given the same opportunities or support from faculty which is predominantly male (in CS I believe 80-90%+ if my memory serves me correctly), and thus decide to enter other fields, women are finding that Law firms that are willing to hire them as associates, are refusing them the higher paid and more prestigious partnership positions, and thus are also seeking to either leave the field or to start their own firms. The "Old Boys Club" is still alive and well in the United States. It's too easy to ignore these issues, and say that women are simply not interested, but this is an oversimplification of the issue.
And as to your statement about boys not wanted to play with barbies- do you think this could possibly be caused by the fact that girls are socialized from birth to act in a manner that is appropriate for their sex? Their rooms are adorned in pink, they are given pink clothing to wear to seperate them from their male coutnerparts, and they are shown dolls and makeup as proper means of entertainment. The fact that we live in this society doesn't mean that is in any way natural, neutral, or necessary. We push girls to act a certain way, just as we push boys to act in a certain manner. Then we justify their inculcated differences as "natural".
You're assuming that women are choosing not to enter Computer Science because they simply have less interest in the area. While this may be, it doesn't explain the whole story. There are many areas where women show great interest and are still denied equal access. This, and not women's waining interest in CS most likely explains the decline in female CS majors.
The legal profession is a good example of the discrimination the poster is referencing. Over the last few decades, women's enrollment at law schools has expanded dramatically. Most law schools now have equal or higher enrollment of women than men. I don't believe this can be fully explained (or explained) by greater interest in the Law on the part of women. Rather, Law Schools have made efforts to make the environment open and inclusive. While women faced discrimination in the 70s and 80s, Law schools now provide a far more equal teaching environment.
Yet, despite this increase in enrollment, women attorneys have been leaving the field. While nearly 50% of new associates are women, less than 10% of partners are female. This can't be blown off as being due to lack of interest. Associates at large firms put in 60+ hours a week, and are surely commited to the responsibilities of partnership. Despite this, men are dispraportionately chosen for the highest paying positions. As in CS where women are often not given the same opportunities or support from faculty which is predominantly male (in CS I believe 80-90%+ if my memory serves me correctly), and thus decide to enter other fields, women are finding that Law firms that are willing to hire them as associates, are refusing them the higher paid and more prestigious partnership positions, and thus are also seeking to either leave the field or to start their own firms. The "Old Boys Club" is still alive and well in the United States. It's too easy to ignore these issues, and say that women are simply not interested, but this is an oversimplification of the issue.
And as to your statement about boys not wanted to play with barbies- do you think this could possibly be caused by the fact that girls are socialized from birth to act in a manner that is appropriate for their sex? Their rooms are adorned in pink, they are given pink clothing to wear to seperate them from their male coutnerparts, and they are shown dolls and makeup as proper means of entertainment. The fact that we live in this society doesn't mean that is in any way natural, neutral, or necessary. We push girls to act a certain way, just as we push boys to act in a certain manner. Then we justify their inculcated differences as "natural".
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
You're assuming that women are choosing not to enter Computer Science because they simply have less interest in the area. While this may be, it doesn't explain the whole story. There are many areas where women show great interest and are still denied equal access. This, and not women's waining interest in CS most likely explains the decline in female CS majors.
The legal profession is a good example of the discrimination the poster is referencing. Over the last few decades, women's enrollment at law schools has expanded dramatically. Most law schools now have equal or higher enrollment of women than men. I don't believe this can be fully explained (or explained) by greater interest in the Law on the part of women. Rather, Law Schools have made efforts to make the environment open and inclusive. While women faced discrimination in the 70s and 80s, Law schools now provide a far more equal teaching environment.
Yet, despite this increase in enrollment, women attorneys have been leaving the field. While nearly 50% of new associates are women, less than 10% of partners are female. This can't be blown off as being due to lack of interest. Associates at large firms put in 60+ hours a week, and are surely commited to the responsibilities of partnership. Despite this, men are dispraportionately chosen for the highest paying positions. As in CS where women are often not given the same opportunities or support from faculty which is predominantly male (in CS I believe 80-90%+ if my memory serves me correctly), and thus decide to enter other fields, women are finding that Law firms that are willing to hire them as associates, are refusing them the higher paid and more prestigious partnership positions, and thus are also seeking to either leave the field or to start their own firms. The "Old Boys Club" is still alive and well in the United States. It's too easy to ignore these issues, and say that women are simply not interested, but this is an oversimplification of the issue.
And as to your statement about boys not wanted to play with barbies- do you think this could possibly be caused by the fact that girls are socialized from birth to act in a manner that is appropriate for their sex? Their rooms are adorned in pink, they are given pink clothing to wear to seperate them from their male coutnerparts, and they are shown dolls and makeup as proper means of entertainment. The fact that we live in this society doesn't mean that is in any way natural, neutral, or necessary. We push girls to act a certain way, just as we push boys to act in a certain manner. Then we justify their inculcated differences as "natural".
I have 4 160 GB Seagate drives in my MythTV box, and I have several other 160 and 200 GB Seagate drives in other machines. I haven't had a problem in the 3 years+ that I've used the drives.
Slashdot Mirror
And the 2-3 year old girls "in their pink outfits" expressed a desire to be clad in pink? Even if they did go to the store and select a pink outfit, this wouldn't necessary reflect a neutral choice as from a very early age clothing is seperated by color - pink for girls, blue for boys. Also, rowdy behavior by boys is fairly accepted. If a girl acted in the same manner, she would be seen as a tomboy and would probably be more harshly punished.
Despite what I have argued previously, I'm not saying girls and boys have no innate differences. I just think we overlook the power of socialization. They would probably behave differently in a neutral society, but to what extent, no can can say for sure.
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
You are absolutely right. Some men would want to stay home with their children but may shy away from doing so because of the scorn that they would inevitably receive. I sympathize with these men; sexism hurts both men and women. Yet, it's still true that most men simply do not want to stay home with their kids, and feel that their wife, and not they should be doing so.
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171601&cid=142 93633. I respond to your point about women choosing to have children and leave the workplace. I agree that many women make this choice, but there's more to the issue.
2 93261. In it, I explain why women choosing to leave work and have children does not explain the vast difference in the number of female and male partners - 9 to 1 or more. This does account for some of the difference, but female associates are given different and discriminatory standards that require a higher level of competancy and motivation to achieve partnership. This view that all or most women decide to leave work to care for their children also leads to discriminatory promotion practices as employers assume that female employers are going to have kids, even if they have no intention of doing so.
Also see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171601&cid=14
As to your view about socialization, my own experience contradicts your view. My parents never pushed my sister to play with barbies or dolls. For the first few years of her life, before she entered school and was influenced by her peers, she played with toy trucks and trains, and had no dolls. When my parents took her to a toy store, they let her choose what she wanted without influencing her decision- and the toys she chose are considered to be for boys. As soon as she entered school, she began desiring dolls and Barbies. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume this was caused by socailization from her peers.
Likewise, one of my Professor's children was brought up in the same environment. Despite the fact that he was a boy, he played with barbies and other dolls for years. Don't ignore the power of socialization. Just becuase it's so widespread and seemingly inocuous doesn't mean it isn't there. Also, check out Foucault's writings.
The problem is that women are in essence given the choice of having children or a good career with advancement opportunities. Men aren't required to make this choice- they can have both. While it is true that women can have kids without staying home and that their husband can stay home with the kids, this doesn't happen for several reasons. First, there is a social stigma against women who have children and use day care rather than staying home with the child in his/her infancy. Secondly, and more importantly, very few men are willing to stay home with the kids and sacrafice their career. Society doesn't expect them to do so, and by and large, they aren't willing to. Women on the other hand, are expected to have children, and to stay home and care for them. The choice women make to have children and to stay home, and to care for their children isn't made in a void. Societal pressure and the unwillingness of men to take equal parental responsibility accounts for much of the decisions that we view as reflecting women's true will. We should recognize that societal discrimination affects the choices people make.
The studies I cited did provide some evidence why discrimination was the lilkely explanation for the differential enrollment figures in CS. I just don't have access to the studies at the moment, and unlike some on Slashdot, I don't want to just make stuff up.
2 93261 for my reasons for believing that discrimination is a factor in the differential employment of women as partners in law firms. It's based on discussions I've had with female attorneys, who I believe are accurately reprenting their experiences.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171601&cid=14
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
I understand your position and I think that is one source of discrimination. However, from my numerous conversations with female attorneys, I have been told that this is not the only discrimination they face. As you state, I agree that women who decide to leave the workplace to care for their children for several years are put in a very difficult situation and are in essence giving up the opportunity of partnership. I also think that it is unacceptable that women are expected to make this sacrafice, while men are not. Women who don't have children are seen as being cold and uninterested in a family, and those who decide to work despite having kids are considered bad mothers. The same stigma does not apply to men.
Having said that, many women choose NOT to have children and still face discrimination. The female attorneys I have spoken with describe the situation as this: Female associates are held to different standards than male associates. Men are expected to be rutheless and ambitious, while women who act in the same manner are considered bitchy. This attitude is reflected in sex discrimination claims when women sue who are denied partnership. Secondly, women are held to a higher standard than men. It is not impossible for a woman to become partner but she has to be more devoted than a man, more intelligent, work longer hours etc. In addition, she has to act in a more deferential manner so that she is not seen as as bitchy, while being aggressive enough so she is seen as highly competant. Because of these higher, and discriminatory standards, it's generally very difficult for female associates to become partners.
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
Sorry, for the crappy formatting. I accidentally chose HTML formatting. Here's a readable version:
You're assuming that women are choosing not to enter Computer Science because they simply have less interest in the area. While this may be, it doesn't explain the whole story. There are many areas where women show great interest and are still denied equal access. This, and not women's waining interest in CS most likely explains the decline in female CS majors.
The legal profession is a good example of the discrimination the poster is referencing. Over the last few decades, women's enrollment at law schools has expanded dramatically. Most law schools now have equal or higher enrollment of women than men. I don't believe this can be fully explained (or explained) by greater interest in the Law on the part of women. Rather, Law Schools have made efforts to make the environment open and inclusive. While women faced discrimination in the 70s and 80s, Law schools now provide a far more equal teaching environment.
Yet, despite this increase in enrollment, women attorneys have been leaving the field. While nearly 50% of new associates are women, less than 10% of partners are female. This can't be blown off as being due to lack of interest. Associates at large firms put in 60+ hours a week, and are surely commited to the responsibilities of partnership. Despite this, men are dispraportionately chosen for the highest paying positions. As in CS where women are often not given the same opportunities or support from faculty which is predominantly male (in CS I believe 80-90%+ if my memory serves me correctly), and thus decide to enter other fields, women are finding that Law firms that are willing to hire them as associates, are refusing them the higher paid and more prestigious partnership positions, and thus are also seeking to either leave the field or to start their own firms. The "Old Boys Club" is still alive and well in the United States. It's too easy to ignore these issues, and say that women are simply not interested, but this is an oversimplification of the issue.
And as to your statement about boys not wanted to play with barbies- do you think this could possibly be caused by the fact that girls are socialized from birth to act in a manner that is appropriate for their sex? Their rooms are adorned in pink, they are given pink clothing to wear to seperate them from their male coutnerparts, and they are shown dolls and makeup as proper means of entertainment. The fact that we live in this society doesn't mean that is in any way natural, neutral, or necessary. We push girls to act a certain way, just as we push boys to act in a certain manner. Then we justify their inculcated differences as "natural".
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
Sorry, this was actually in response to http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171601&cid= 14292348
You're assuming that women are choosing not to enter Computer Science because they simply have less interest in the area. While this may be, it doesn't explain the whole story. There are many areas where women show great interest and are still denied equal access. This, and not women's waining interest in CS most likely explains the decline in female CS majors. The legal profession is a good example of the discrimination the poster is referencing. Over the last few decades, women's enrollment at law schools has expanded dramatically. Most law schools now have equal or higher enrollment of women than men. I don't believe this can be fully explained (or explained) by greater interest in the Law on the part of women. Rather, Law Schools have made efforts to make the environment open and inclusive. While women faced discrimination in the 70s and 80s, Law schools now provide a far more equal teaching environment. Yet, despite this increase in enrollment, women attorneys have been leaving the field. While nearly 50% of new associates are women, less than 10% of partners are female. This can't be blown off as being due to lack of interest. Associates at large firms put in 60+ hours a week, and are surely commited to the responsibilities of partnership. Despite this, men are dispraportionately chosen for the highest paying positions. As in CS where women are often not given the same opportunities or support from faculty which is predominantly male (in CS I believe 80-90%+ if my memory serves me correctly), and thus decide to enter other fields, women are finding that Law firms that are willing to hire them as associates, are refusing them the higher paid and more prestigious partnership positions, and thus are also seeking to either leave the field or to start their own firms. The "Old Boys Club" is still alive and well in the United States. It's too easy to ignore these issues, and say that women are simply not interested, but this is an oversimplification of the issue. And as to your statement about boys not wanted to play with barbies- do you think this could possibly be caused by the fact that girls are socialized from birth to act in a manner that is appropriate for their sex? Their rooms are adorned in pink, they are given pink clothing to wear to seperate them from their male coutnerparts, and they are shown dolls and makeup as proper means of entertainment. The fact that we live in this society doesn't mean that is in any way natural, neutral, or necessary. We push girls to act a certain way, just as we push boys to act in a certain manner. Then we justify their inculcated differences as "natural". Jason Wittlin-Cohen
You're assuming that women are choosing not to enter Computer Science because they simply have less interest in the area. While this may be, it doesn't explain the whole story. There are many areas where women show great interest and are still denied equal access. This, and not women's waining interest in CS most likely explains the decline in female CS majors.
The legal profession is a good example of the discrimination the poster is referencing. Over the last few decades, women's enrollment at law schools has expanded dramatically. Most law schools now have equal or higher enrollment of women than men. I don't believe this can be fully explained (or explained) by greater interest in the Law on the part of women. Rather, Law Schools have made efforts to make the environment open and inclusive. While women faced discrimination in the 70s and 80s, Law schools now provide a far more equal teaching environment.
Yet, despite this increase in enrollment, women attorneys have been leaving the field. While nearly 50% of new associates are women, less than 10% of partners are female. This can't be blown off as being due to lack of interest. Associates at large firms put in 60+ hours a week, and are surely commited to the responsibilities of partnership. Despite this, men are dispraportionately chosen for the highest paying positions. As in CS where women are often not given the same opportunities or support from faculty which is predominantly male (in CS I believe 80-90%+ if my memory serves me correctly), and thus decide to enter other fields, women are finding that Law firms that are willing to hire them as associates, are refusing them the higher paid and more prestigious partnership positions, and thus are also seeking to either leave the field or to start their own firms. The "Old Boys Club" is still alive and well in the United States. It's too easy to ignore these issues, and say that women are simply not interested, but this is an oversimplification of the issue.
And as to your statement about boys not wanted to play with barbies- do you think this could possibly be caused by the fact that girls are socialized from birth to act in a manner that is appropriate for their sex? Their rooms are adorned in pink, they are given pink clothing to wear to seperate them from their male coutnerparts, and they are shown dolls and makeup as proper means of entertainment. The fact that we live in this society doesn't mean that is in any way natural, neutral, or necessary. We push girls to act a certain way, just as we push boys to act in a certain manner. Then we justify their inculcated differences as "natural".
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
I have 4 160 GB Seagate drives in my MythTV box, and I have several other 160 and 200 GB Seagate drives in other machines. I haven't had a problem in the 3 years+ that I've used the drives.