A new study shows that when girls do worse than boys at math, the likely culprit is culture.
Amanda gets her hands on an anti-choice manual - read it, if you can stomach it.
Ann and Dana bring you the third installation of "Ask a Feminist." This time it's door-opening protocol...
Emily at RH Reality Check calls out "pro-lifers" who abet in terrorizing abortion providers.
Saletan at Slate hits a new low with this headline: Is it wrong to murder an abortionist?
New research explores Twitter and gender
Julia Serano announces a show she'll be participating in at the 2009 National Queer Arts Festival: Girl Talk: A Cis and Trans Woman Dialogue.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14076
The anti-choice manual is fascinating, but I feel like it's great to read it. I was particularly amazing that they didn't even put eclampsia into the life-threat category. Rather, it's "merely" a "health threat". I guess the fact that the woman will only *probably* die rather than *certainly* means it's not life-threatening.
The whole section on oral contraceptives was both sad and oddly hilarious. But it *did* remind me just how much misinformation about BC is out there.
from the anti-choice handbook: "In other words, you believe abortion is so immoral that it MUST be legislated, but you believe that contraception, even if it's immoral, should not be legislated."
I think my head just exploded.
That maths study is brilliant; I'm going to have to bookmark that page in order to have hard evidence next time I have the "no, women are *not* intrinsically worse at maths than boys" discussion (along with the various studies on stereotype threat). I'm a grad student aiming to be an academic mathematician, so all this is rather important to me.
I also need to bookmark the page. And to Larry Summers, who thinks that women aren't good enough at math to be top-level economists I say:
You're not looking too bright yourself, Mr. Deregulate the Banks. In fact decidedly dumber than Brooksley Borne or Sheila Bair.
The SAT math gap has been closed, the English achievement gap with boys behind still exists....
Uh, yeah, not really comparable. Boys are not doing poorly in English because our culture tells them "they're too tough and manly for public speaking and writing," in the way girls are told they're "too emotional and rely too much on feelings to do logical things like math." Boys have well-trodden paths and already-established patterns and male role models to follow in virtually every field, even the most feminized, such as art, dance, and poetry.
Women do not.
Men still hold many or most of the positions of power even in feminized fields like dance and poetry.
This is the point of the math gender-gap study.
Well also, what makes this article interesting is that it is about performance *at the extremes*, where there is a quite ingrained stereotype of women not matching up to men. Looking at median SAT scores is completely different.
Men still hold many or most of the positions of power even in feminized fields like dance and poetry.
Men dominate fields like scriptwriting, literature (New York Times Book Review style literature), political nonfiction writing, and newspaper writing. Once again, when you look at the extremes, it's where the differences tend to come out.
I cant count the times some asshole has written about men exclusively having the potential to be either great or polar opposite of that. They refer to it like its some great thing. Were great and have the potential to be great or average but women can only be average. I always knew it was bullshit. I hardly needed a study to prove it.
Well maybe they should stop saying that reading and speaking properly and doing other 'feminized' things arent for boys and start reading and practicing verbal skills with them rather than thinking theyre above that or 'too active' for things that are more 'natural' for females?
I read the Saletan article and threw up in my mouth a little. I'm not even being sarcastic, i actually felt sick.
Personally, I think that anti-choicers who commit or at least abet violence against abortion providers are actually a step above those who do not. Both of them have messed up beliefs, but those who then limit their activism to articles on the Internet compound their factual ignorance with the personal failings of either cowardice or hypocrisy.
Remember for a moment what they believe to be happening: state-sanctioned mass murder of defenseless people. If you lived in a society in which (what you regarded as) people were being continuously and legally killed in cold blood, you'd probably be sympathetic to those who decided to try and solve the situation by taking the law into their own hands. I should hope you would even be inclined to help them, if not take up arms yourself. That sort of dilemma has faced enough people in fairly recent history that just such a situation shouldn't be hard for you to imagine.
In fact, that is exactly the situation anti-choice terrorists perceive themselves to be in. It is regrettable that they are so deluded, but taking for granted that they are, for whatever reason, thusly deluded, I certainly hold a smidgen more respect for those that have the guts to respond to such apparent horrors appropriately. I would even go so far as to say that anyone who believes such a thing and fails to deploy extreme measures is a coward and a colluder of the worst sort.
Unless, of course, they don't actually believe in the worldview they expose when they call abortion a form of murder. If abortion were a form of murder, it would be the height of human atrocity! Yet, most anti-choicers do not act even remotely like people faced with such a problem, even when it comes to their proposed legal solutions to the abortion problem. For instance, most will concede to making abortion legal in cases of rape, which makes absolutely no sense if the fetus in question possesses personhood. The particulars of its conception does not alter it's right to not be executed! But it isn't really about the fetus at all, really, it's about using pregnancy as punishment for promiscuity (among many other things). Under that idea, it stands to reason that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, since it wasn't the woman's fault (unless she was asking for it), and so the anti-choicer's true motives are revealed. They don't care about the fetus at all; they value it only as a bloody thing to dance around on strings for the promotion of misogyny, and to then argue about the right to life with a straight face is a disgusting display of hypocrisy.
Anti-choice terrorists and those who help them, then, posses at least two great virtues that the politely anti-choice lack: they are brave, and they are sincere. To me, this elevates them far above the moral plane of anyone who is just casually anti-choice, even if my own ethics mandate violent retribution against the former and begrudging tolerance of the later.
Emily called out those who abet murder, but I instead call out those who fail to do so. I say, anyone who says abortion is murder should have the moral fortitude to take up arms against that atrocity, or else admit the lie behind their rhetoric and leave women the fuck alone!
This is Saletan's point. I still disagree.
My, how embarrassing. I hadn't even read that article, and then I make this huge verbose post saying the exact same thing, less competently. I could have saved everyone's time if I had just said that I agree with Saletan.
My apologies. Also, my thanks for mentioning that, since it caused me to then read that article and find such gems as:
"You think you're pro-choice. You think marching or phone-banking makes you an activist. You know nothing. There's you, and then there are the people who work in the clinics. And then there are the people who use the forceps. And then there are the people who use the forceps nobody else will use. At the end of the line, there's George Tiller."
Well said, Saletan.
Normally I'm all about pointing out hypocrisy. But when it involves a group of people I disagree with deciding NOT to endorse vigilante terrorism, I say let's back the hell off and say yes! We agree that this terrorist was wrong.
Well, I think it's not even hypocrisy: I mean, I hate rape, and I think it's a destructive and terrible act: in some cases, it may be approaching the immorality of murder. Am I about to go kill a child rapist? No. I dislike war: I think that thousands of Iraqi civilians died pointlessly in both Gulf excursions-am I going to try and kill the officials who made these decisions? No.
You can think an act is terrible, murderous, punishable by death, and not bring that punishment about by yourself. Most people realize that they are NOT judge, jury and executioner, despite their passionate feelings. Saletan is an idiot masquerading his idiocy as "deep thoughts" and thinks he's oh so philosophical for recognizing this "moral ambiguity."
If you don't like murder, don't muder ANYone. yeesh, it's not hard, right?
I actually agree with you and Saletin. I think his article was brilliantly written and true and meaningful and thought-provoking and all sorts of other things that would make almost everyone angry. The headline is inappropriate and shocking because it's a question we need to realize people actually wonder about, and we need to know why they wonder about it and how they come to their answers in order to fight it.
Remember for a moment what they believe to be happening: state-sanctioned mass murder of defenseless people. If you lived in a society in which (what you regarded as) people were being continuously and legally killed in cold blood, you'd probably be sympathetic to those who decided to try and solve the situation by taking the law into their own hands.
This is a fair question. You might be interested to read John Zmirak's answer, which draws upon Catholic Just War theory. (It is predicated on the theory that killing abortionists is - essentially - an act of war.)
Sorry the link above isn't working:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6157&Itemid=48
So you'd be for me taking up violent arms against people trying to take away my rights because the government isnt doing enough to stop them?
Just wanted to send some love to Janet Hyde at my alma mater. It's great to know feminist women are doing awesome research in that place where I once was. And perhaps where I will be again.
I was just going to say--regarding Tiller (and Alice's) point--an anti-choicer willing to blow up a clinic doesn't see a doctor dispensing birth control or someone willing to help a woman facing life and death, doesn't see a professional helping a rape victim--they see Hitler.
So I can see the logic there, but I can also see (and obviously prefer) an activist who will back off because they see "nuance" and exceptions where the loss/sanity of a living patient (raped...at risk of death...etc.)FINALLY overrules bearing a fetus to term. (At least,they "back off" ideologically due to self-interest...the cause wouldn't be very popular if it promoted gems like THAT with the apathetic masses who take it for granted, that, as an example--"pro-life" increasingly, truly means "anti-birth control" and that "abortionists" like Tiller provided such services.)
They might be impressive for attacking people THEY see as modern-day Hitlers, but I could argue that their passion can also be read as arrogance. If everyone took up arms against a group they saw as offensive--and came to their conclusions by indifference to compromise (i.e. for "pro-life" activists, deciding to work to reduce abortions through promotion of birth control AND abstinence) or facts (beyond the bullshit and conspiracies presented by their leaders)--the country would dissolve into anarchy.
When is an "activist"--someone to respect if only for having the balls to fight for what they believe in and to using force to show they mean business--REALLY just another misinformed, dangerous,willfully ignorant destructive lunatic? Couldn't you argue that if these people--freedom-fighters in their own minds--REALLY wanted to bring legitimacy to their cause, they'd come up with more sustainable ways to reduce abortions than blowing stuff up?
Why should I be impressed NOW?
They won't do that because having an actual discussion about sexual health, the costliness of child welfare, and the relationship between planned families and parental preparedness are too hard.
When is an "activist"--someone to respect if only for having the balls to fight for what they believe in and to using force to show they mean business--REALLY just another misinformed, dangerous,willfully ignorant destructive lunatic?
I don't see those as mutually exclusive. I mean, don't get me wrong here; I'm not saying we shouldn't still kill them or anything! Just that they're more respectable than the rank-and-file of their cause, and so treating them as somehow worse than their non-violent counter-parts is a bit backwards. The casual activists are also misinformed, dangerous, willfully ignorant, and destructive. They're just less personal and direct about it.
I'll take the "casual activist" over someone who terrorizes and actually uses force against doctors and patients any day.
Ahh, but it is again being forgotten that government action also constitutes the use of force. It's a lot less dramatic when someone never even tries to get an abortion because it is illegal in their particular circumstances or when the law would expose them to excessive hazard (as with parental notification laws) than when someone is murdered, but I'm certain that not even 9009 anti-choice terrorists working together could match the abortion-denying ability presently exercised by law enforcement personal who derive their authority from, mostly, the people who vote anti-choice and don't otherwise do much on the issue.
Even if you think about it in terms of harm to innocents, terrorists are insignificant next to the rest. They certainly achieve more on an individual basis, but there are just so many more casual activists than terrorists that it is clear where the real harm comes from.
The thing is, the government is functioning and exercises authority because we implicitly GIVE them that authority by living within their care, protection and jurisdiction, and accepting the other benefits they hand out. i.s., you pay taxes, you elect legislators, no matter how attenuated the link, there's something like Hobbes' social contract at work: these are the people we've chosen (even when we voted for the other person) to lead us, these are the people we've surrendered authority to, and they have (theoretical) limitations on their ability to act imposed by the Constitution.
So yeah, they impose a lot more force, but the force is known and understandable, it's the porduct of a reasoned value choice (again, theoretically) that I've agreed to accept by remaining a citizen, and it's not supposed to be arbitrary. Unlike these people who take the law into their own hands. That's precisely the reason why our system abhors vigilantes: even if they seem like they might be doing something "morally right" they're not participating correctly. Even though a lot of what I expressed is abstract, I'd rather the government prevent abortions than activists kill people. At least you can reason with the government by appealing to its survival instinct (i.e. by voting or organising for change) You can't reason with a true believer who thinks they, and they alone know what's right.
"They won't do that because having an actual discussion about sexual health, the costliness of child welfare, and the relationship between planned families and parental preparedness are too hard. "
I dont think its because its too hard but becuase thinking ealistically about the issue dispels there bullshit, much of it resting on religion Christian dogma. If this isnt true, then perhaps they wonder whether or not the bible is true? Also, then they would have to quit judging women so superficially.
I love how the anti-choice handbook just let me in on the fact that all this time, I was supposed to be making a marriage commitment to have sex to "give assurance that the intimacy won't be squandered or treated in a cavalier way."
And that condoms/bc are only ways to avoid the underlying issue of self control.
Because hey, all women are good for is cooking, cleaning, and popping out babies, right?
"Boys are not doing poorly in English because our culture tells them "they're too tough and manly for public speaking and writing,"
A typo, right? What do you believe is the reason why boys do poorly in English?
Why does it matter whether there are 'role models' if it is apparent that many boys are very far behind their female counterparts?
supposed to be a reply.....
You also have to admit writing and reading are cast as feminized things. Parents indoctrinate their boys accordingly. This is also why the stereotype around the argument that females speak 1 million words a day and males only 2 words. Its not science but stereotypes. Scientists recently did a study on that because that claim was being tossed around so much. They found that both genders spoke on average around the same amount a day. Even the book the "Female Brain" claims that stereotype is 'science.' It actually came from a match-making service in the 1980's.
Boys arent VERY far behind females. Thats ludicrous. The difference is minor. Its only being hyped by right wiong assholes to regress womens rights and autonomous recognition in society.
"Blame the females, look our boy isnt reading!"
It should be blame the patriarchy and look at the parents.
I am not on the right, neither am I an asshole
Off the top of my head, I can tell you that the gap between the genders is around 50 points, which is pretty significant considering the tremendous number of SAT takes.
A freshman English equivalent, the AP English Language exam, is taken by more than twice as many females than males (a 70/30 split). The figures are even worse for the AP English Literature Exam.
I'm sorry that you think helping boys, in the same away that was used to close the math gap, represses women and blames them, and choose to blame boy's shortcomings on themselves ("patriarchy").
I haven't looked much at the figures regarding boys in the languages, but I don't doubt that there could be societal influence at work here. I can see English Lit being cast as a "wussy, girly subject" and some boys therefore being more reluctant to spend time on it or take it at uni. (Interesting to note, isn't it, that even in this scenario it happens because of *misogyny* - because some of these subjects have become feminised and *that* makes boys less likely to do them?)
All the same, there is one crucial difference that means, IMO, that you really cannot put this and what happens to the women in maths and the sciences on the same level. And that is this: If you progress further along in higher education, the proportion of men goes *up*. In all subjects that I know of. The discouraging goes through to the highest levels of the subject.
Also, the discouraging that happens to boys is really not the same as that that happens to girls. With girls, it's "oh, girls are bad at this. Girls can't do this." It would be patently ridiculous to do anything of the sort with English, given that the vast majority of our famous authors, poets, etc. are men; the "women are better at language and boys at science" trope does not have nearly the same force applied to men because of this. Boys thinking English Lit is uncool and girly is a far cry from girls thinking that they are fundamentally hopeless at maths because of their gender and needn't really bother to try. And I am willing to consider the former as a problem, but *not* if you portray it as reverse sexism! and exactly the same as what's happening to the girls!
(Also, a point: Since women are being discouraged from maths, engineering, the hard sciences, computer science and the like but they still need to do *something* in high school and college, one would expect to find an imbalance in some subjects. You can't have much more men in maths, etc. and then 50% in all the subjects that aren't being affected if there isn't really a difference between the genders regarding how many go to high school/college.)
The Saletan articles makes a few good points. But it also flip flops a bit. Or at least it seems ambiguous about the intentions of the author for most of the article.
I hope this doesn't sound like a challenge to anti-choice groups. Such as ' if you're REALLY for protecting life then you'll kill too.'
I read the article over and over and that is how it sounded to me. Think of how that'll sound to someone who is zealous about the anti-choice movement.
Just a thought.