I would enjoy reading a discussion here on a certain aspect of progressive thought, but I won't say more unless Dan gives me a green light to veer onto such a topic on this page.
In broadest terms, my question is: "Am I making a straw man out of progressives when I say they want equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?"
The particulars might be sex, race, LGBT, handicap, economic, citizenship status.
If you prefer a more specific question, would you argue against the idea that females and males tend to have interests in different things for biological reasons such that forcing public school classes and occupations to be a perfect 50/50 mix of sexes is misguided?
About eight years back I walked out of a grocery store and saw what I took to be a family of three. The mother was coaxing her son, about five years of age, to continue walking to their car, while the slightly older sister continued on toward the car. The boy was transfixed by a cherry picker truck which was being used to service an illuminated sign high up on the storefront. The hydraulic hoses and pistons were exposed to view along the boom. The behaviors were identical to how my sister and I would have been back in our childhood. Would a progressive say that is the result of societal conditioning? Not that girls are intrinsically more interested in fashion, dolls, grooming, etc?
In the last couple decades especially I have seen female students being urged to get into the so-called STEM subjects. There is consternation in media when a tech company has more male employees than female. I recall a female TV news reporter about a year back, interviewing a man who runs drone race competitions, who was the most animated when questioning him about how many females get involved, and asking, "What are you doing to get more females into this?"
I acknowledge there are always going to be cases like Gianni Versace and Martina Navratilova which go against what I see as the natural grain. But do you think it realistic that a whopping 50% of males are having their interests suppressed by societal pressure, and likewise 50% of females, and leaders in education and business need to be proactive in setting them free from their oppression until a 50/50 sex balance has been established?
would you argue against the idea that females and males tend to have interests in different things for biological reasons such that forcing public school classes and occupations to be a perfect 50/50 mix of sexes is misguided?
I'm unaware of anyone "forcing" public school classes or occupations to be a perfect 50/50 mix of sexes.
If there were anyone suggesting such, I'd say that it's misguided/missing the point/the wrong solution.
I would NOT say that underrepresentation of a gender in certain areas isn't a real problem or that we should not worry about it, seeing as it's a real problem.
Does that answer the question?
The behaviors were identical to how my sister and I would have been back in our childhood. Would a progressive say that is the result of societal conditioning? Not that girls are intrinsically more interested in fashion, dolls, grooming, etc?
I don't know that a rational conservative would make the suggestion that it's solely the result of societal conditioning, although, I'm sure some would. I wouldn't.
I would also not argue that "girls are intrinsically" more interested in dolls, grooming, fashion, etc. I know of no research to suggest that conclusion.
Look, my family raised our first born son in a house with no guns. So far as I know, we didn't really watch media with guns with him in his first ~three years of life. We taught a more generally peacemaking approach to life.
Nonetheless, when he was two or three years old, he'd chew crackers into the shape of a gun and then "shoot" the gun.
Do I think males are intrinsically predispositioned to embrace guns? No, that's impossible, given that 300 years ago, there were no guns. It can't be that "guns" are somehow built into our DNA, it almost certainly had to be cultural, to some degree (grandparents' influence would be my guess... although we don't know for sure!)
I'm not saying that I don't think there are any differences between men and women, male and female... of course there are. I just agree with those who say that, generally speaking, we benefit from having a wealth of diversity in all areas of life.
Again, I know of no one advocating for some precise 50/50 split in male/female representation in all areas of life... just that it's a good goal to strive for, having women, minorities and others well-represented in areas, especially, where they have societally/historically been denied opportunities/suppressed.
Thanks for your comments and the links, which I have read.
Today I've sent an email to someone who is a lot more up to date on what modern public schools are doing, to ask him about the "no one advocating for some precise 50/50 split," so I will have more to say here when I hear back from him. (I'll respond to your "Have I answered your questions" at that time.)
Regarding the "girls prefer pink" link, for those younger than 2.5 yrs old, there's nothing that suggests the kids were encouraged to select by color or any indication that color at that age matters to simply getting their hands on whichever is easiest to to obtain. As such, the randomness in selection by those kids in no way disproves the hypothosis that girls GENERALLY prefer pink and boys don't. Just one of the kinds of questions that don't occur to those thinking in terms of an agenda as opposed to purely ojective curiosity and discovery.
God is good, Dan. There is no one but Him who is. You prove once again that it is you who has trouble comprehending. I made no suggestion as to what I think regarding girls and the color pink. My comment focused totally on the study and how it fails to indicate what it seems the researchers are trying to get across.
Do I think people are predisposed to certain things as a result of their sex? Yes. Does that include colors? I don’t see why not, though I don't think color preference, or lack thereof, mitigates the overall point that people are indeed drawn to certain things---IN GENERAL---because of their sex.
Today I am starting to read the biography of a Jewish songwriter, and I see this regarding his father back around the WW II era: "When the Brooklyn Dodgers sent a third-string catcher, the rare professional ball player who was also a Jew, down to the minor leagues, Morris collected fifteen thousand signatures on a petition from other Williamsburg Jews to bring him back to the majors."
Do you see that as admirable?
In the context of 2018, suppose a white person collected white folks' signatures to persuade an NBA team owner to draft a particular white player onto an all-black roster. Would you see that as admirable?
I heard back from my schoolteacher friend via email. I did not mention Dan specifically by name when I wrote to him, just that I had seen something interesting online. He writes:
"In today's schools, there is very little difference between boys and girls. PE is mixed. There is little-to-no focus on competition. they play a lot of fun games: Field Hockey, Frisbee, even Cricket. They also do excercise dancing, like Richard Simmons. It's a lot more about having fun with physical activity than about sports. There is no more home ec, but they have things like culinary, and hospitality. There are girls and boys in both. Cheerleaders are mainly girls, but typically there are always a few boys too. The teacher I work with is the wrestling coach. Wrestling is technically for boys and girls, but it is mainly boys. [A certain high school he taught at, name deleted by Hiram] was all boys. Some of the teams we competed against had girls. I remember one girl who was a very good wrestler, and very small. She was in one of the littlest weight classes. I have seen a few girl football players. In band, the difference between 'girl' and 'boy' instuments has disappeared. Boys and girls play flutes, as well as tubas."
He seems pretty positive about the changes in school policy since he and I were kids, I'll grant. I'll drop by in a day or two with more of my thoughts.
I'll say that Dan answered questions above, but I will add that it makes for a more colorful, sexier world in my opinion when females and males have to some significant degree different interests and aptitudes, and I don't like to see pressure or incentives being applied to try to "balance" things out.
Hiram, the fact that men an women are created with genetic, biological, structural, cognitive, and emotional differences does indeed make the world a better and more interesting place. The fact that so many people want to deny those things and insist on some bizarre version of equality, doesn’t.
Again, I don't know that many people are denying that there are differences between people - all people, between men and women, between this one and that one... whoever. The point is that we benefit when everyone has the opportunity and encouragement to go in whatever field of endeavor they choose. We will and do benefit from having more women and minorities included in STEM. We will and do benefit from having gay folk and transgender folk in the military. We will and do benefit when women are treated as equals and have equal opportunity to chase their dreams.
Forced quotas to force 50/50 male/female sports teams? Doesn't exist. Forced quotas to force 50/50 male/female in this class or that? Doesn't exist.
The opportunity for women to pursue whatever field they wish to pursue? SHOULD exist.
If some don't think, for instance, that women should be pastors or soldiers or scientists? Tough, it's not their call to make.
"We will and do benefit from having more women and minorities included in STEM."
How exactly?
"We will and do benefit from having gay folk and transgender folk in the military."
How exactly?
"We will and do benefit when women are treated as equals and have equal opportunity to chase their dreams."
That's hardly an issue in this day and age. Indeed, not an issue at all for most people and not the issue being dealt with in discussions about why women don't seek employment in some areas, and men don't in others.
"If some don't think, for instance, that women should be pastors or soldiers or scientists? Tough, it's not their call to make."
It is if one is doing the hiring.
If I'm chairing the committee to find a new pastor, I would seek to convince the committee, and thus the congregation, that women are not to be pastors over men. Should the committee agree, then no woman will be a pastor of our congregation. It's our call to make.
If I'm recruiting candidates for the military, I will deny women combat positions because I want the toughest and strongest possible soldier defending the nation. It's my call to make as a recruiter...particularly if I'm the highest military authority.
If I'm in ANY position of authority where I have the final say on hiring, I will hire only based upon qualifications that I believe best serves the interests of whatever organization for which I'm seeking employees. If I believe women are unsuitable, they won't be hired. It's my call to make.
At least that's how it's supposed to work in the real world.
16 comments:
I would enjoy reading a discussion here on a certain aspect of progressive thought, but I won't say more unless Dan gives me a green light to veer onto such a topic on this page.
~ Hiram
You can bring it up and I'll either offer my response or, if it's intriguing to me, maybe create it's own post. Or, I may have no great opinion.
Dan
In broadest terms, my question is: "Am I making a straw man out of progressives when I say they want equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity?"
The particulars might be sex, race, LGBT, handicap, economic, citizenship status.
If you prefer a more specific question, would you argue against the idea that females and males tend to have interests in different things for biological reasons such that forcing public school classes and occupations to be a perfect 50/50 mix of sexes is misguided?
About eight years back I walked out of a grocery store and saw what I took to be a family of three. The mother was coaxing her son, about five years of age, to continue walking to their car, while the slightly older sister continued on toward the car. The boy was transfixed by a cherry picker truck which was being used to service an illuminated sign high up on the storefront. The hydraulic hoses and pistons were exposed to view along the boom. The behaviors were identical to how my sister and I would have been back in our childhood. Would a progressive say that is the result of societal conditioning? Not that girls are intrinsically more interested in fashion, dolls, grooming, etc?
In the last couple decades especially I have seen female students being urged to get into the so-called STEM subjects. There is consternation in media when a tech company has more male employees than female. I recall a female TV news reporter about a year back, interviewing a man who runs drone race competitions, who was the most animated when questioning him about how many females get involved, and asking, "What are you doing to get more females into this?"
I acknowledge there are always going to be cases like Gianni Versace and Martina Navratilova which go against what I see as the natural grain. But do you think it realistic that a whopping 50% of males are having their interests suppressed by societal pressure, and likewise 50% of females, and leaders in education and business need to be proactive in setting them free from their oppression until a 50/50 sex balance has been established?
~ Hiram
would you argue against the idea that females and males tend to have interests in different things for biological reasons such that forcing public school classes and occupations to be a perfect 50/50 mix of sexes is misguided?
I'm unaware of anyone "forcing" public school classes or occupations to be a perfect 50/50 mix of sexes.
If there were anyone suggesting such, I'd say that it's misguided/missing the point/the wrong solution.
I would NOT say that underrepresentation of a gender in certain areas isn't a real problem or that we should not worry about it, seeing as it's a real problem.
Does that answer the question?
The behaviors were identical to how my sister and I would have been back in our childhood. Would a progressive say that is the result of societal conditioning? Not that girls are intrinsically more interested in fashion, dolls, grooming, etc?
I don't know that a rational conservative would make the suggestion that it's solely the result of societal conditioning, although, I'm sure some would. I wouldn't.
I would also not argue that "girls are intrinsically" more interested in dolls, grooming, fashion, etc. I know of no research to suggest that conclusion.
Look, my family raised our first born son in a house with no guns. So far as I know, we didn't really watch media with guns with him in his first ~three years of life. We taught a more generally peacemaking approach to life.
Nonetheless, when he was two or three years old, he'd chew crackers into the shape of a gun and then "shoot" the gun.
Do I think males are intrinsically predispositioned to embrace guns? No, that's impossible, given that 300 years ago, there were no guns. It can't be that "guns" are somehow built into our DNA, it almost certainly had to be cultural, to some degree (grandparents' influence would be my guess... although we don't know for sure!)
Does that answer the question?
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2011/09/05/at-what-age-do-girls-prefer-pink/
https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore
I'm not saying that I don't think there are any differences between men and women, male and female... of course there are. I just agree with those who say that, generally speaking, we benefit from having a wealth of diversity in all areas of life.
Again, I know of no one advocating for some precise 50/50 split in male/female representation in all areas of life... just that it's a good goal to strive for, having women, minorities and others well-represented in areas, especially, where they have societally/historically been denied opportunities/suppressed.
Let me know if that answers your questions.
Thanks for your comments and the links, which I have read.
Today I've sent an email to someone who is a lot more up to date on what modern public schools are doing, to ask him about the "no one advocating for some precise 50/50 split," so I will have more to say here when I hear back from him. (I'll respond to your "Have I answered your questions" at that time.)
~ Hiram
Regarding the "girls prefer pink" link, for those younger than 2.5 yrs old, there's nothing that suggests the kids were encouraged to select by color or any indication that color at that age matters to simply getting their hands on whichever is easiest to to obtain. As such, the randomness in selection by those kids in no way disproves the hypothosis that girls GENERALLY prefer pink and boys don't. Just one of the kinds of questions that don't occur to those thinking in terms of an agenda as opposed to purely ojective curiosity and discovery.
Good God, Marshall, do you really think that there is a biological imperative that causes girls to embrace pink?
Do you recognize that not every culture throughout history has identified "pink" as a "girl color..."?
Dan
Am I the only one who recognizes the absurdity of basing “equality” on gender while denying the very existence of fixed gender.
God is good, Dan. There is no one but Him who is. You prove once again that it is you who has trouble comprehending. I made no suggestion as to what I think regarding girls and the color pink. My comment focused totally on the study and how it fails to indicate what it seems the researchers are trying to get across.
Do I think people are predisposed to certain things as a result of their sex? Yes. Does that include colors? I don’t see why not, though I don't think color preference, or lack thereof, mitigates the overall point that people are indeed drawn to certain things---IN GENERAL---because of their sex.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Today I am starting to read the biography of a Jewish songwriter, and I see this regarding his father back around the WW II era: "When the Brooklyn Dodgers sent a third-string catcher, the rare professional ball player who was also a Jew, down to the minor leagues, Morris collected fifteen thousand signatures on a petition from other Williamsburg Jews to bring him back to the majors."
Do you see that as admirable?
In the context of 2018, suppose a white person collected white folks' signatures to persuade an NBA team owner to draft a particular white player onto an all-black roster. Would you see that as admirable?
~ Hiram
I heard back from my schoolteacher friend via email. I did not mention Dan specifically by name when I wrote to him, just that I had seen something interesting online. He writes:
"In today's schools, there is very little difference between boys and girls. PE is mixed. There is little-to-no focus on competition. they play a lot of fun games: Field Hockey, Frisbee, even Cricket. They also do excercise dancing, like Richard Simmons. It's a lot more about having fun with physical activity than about sports. There is no more home ec, but they have things like culinary, and hospitality. There are girls and boys in both. Cheerleaders are mainly girls, but typically there are always a few boys too. The teacher I work with is the wrestling coach. Wrestling is technically for boys and girls, but it is mainly boys. [A certain high school he taught at, name deleted by Hiram] was all boys. Some of the teams we competed against had girls. I remember one girl who was a very good wrestler, and very small. She was in one of the littlest weight classes. I have seen a few girl football players. In band, the difference between 'girl' and 'boy' instuments has disappeared. Boys and girls play flutes, as well as tubas."
He seems pretty positive about the changes in school policy since he and I were kids, I'll grant. I'll drop by in a day or two with more of my thoughts.
~ Hiram
I'll say that Dan answered questions above, but I will add that it makes for a more colorful, sexier world in my opinion when females and males have to some significant degree different interests and aptitudes, and I don't like to see pressure or incentives being applied to try to "balance" things out.
~ Hiram
Hiram, the fact that men an women are created with genetic, biological, structural, cognitive, and emotional differences does indeed make the world a better and more interesting place. The fact that so many people want to deny those things and insist on some bizarre version of equality, doesn’t.
Again, I don't know that many people are denying that there are differences between people - all people, between men and women, between this one and that one... whoever. The point is that we benefit when everyone has the opportunity and encouragement to go in whatever field of endeavor they choose. We will and do benefit from having more women and minorities included in STEM. We will and do benefit from having gay folk and transgender folk in the military. We will and do benefit when women are treated as equals and have equal opportunity to chase their dreams.
Forced quotas to force 50/50 male/female sports teams? Doesn't exist. Forced quotas to force 50/50 male/female in this class or that? Doesn't exist.
The opportunity for women to pursue whatever field they wish to pursue? SHOULD exist.
If some don't think, for instance, that women should be pastors or soldiers or scientists? Tough, it's not their call to make.
~Dan
Who knew agreement needed to sound so harsh and accusatory.
"We will and do benefit from having more women and minorities included in STEM."
How exactly?
"We will and do benefit from having gay folk and transgender folk in the military."
How exactly?
"We will and do benefit when women are treated as equals and have equal opportunity to chase their dreams."
That's hardly an issue in this day and age. Indeed, not an issue at all for most people and not the issue being dealt with in discussions about why women don't seek employment in some areas, and men don't in others.
"If some don't think, for instance, that women should be pastors or soldiers or scientists? Tough, it's not their call to make."
It is if one is doing the hiring.
If I'm chairing the committee to find a new pastor, I would seek to convince the committee, and thus the congregation, that women are not to be pastors over men. Should the committee agree, then no woman will be a pastor of our congregation. It's our call to make.
If I'm recruiting candidates for the military, I will deny women combat positions because I want the toughest and strongest possible soldier defending the nation. It's my call to make as a recruiter...particularly if I'm the highest military authority.
If I'm in ANY position of authority where I have the final say on hiring, I will hire only based upon qualifications that I believe best serves the interests of whatever organization for which I'm seeking employees. If I believe women are unsuitable, they won't be hired. It's my call to make.
At least that's how it's supposed to work in the real world.
Post a Comment