"I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist"

[TheLurch]

how do you email a dead body?

Photos thereof. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[Jedidiah]

Three year olds!

I recall my eldest granddaughter saying when we were going somewhere, "We're on we're way." Twenty years later I still remember that. I forget yesterday but . . .

[fm93]

That is a bad analogy. We know the Earth is spherical by more than just mere observation. Observation alone tells you nothing. That is the problem. You are relying on just observation and nothing else. Ignoring those things that may contradict it.

That's simply not the case. Observation doesn't always tell everything, but it clearly does tell us something, contrary to your earlier claim (phrased as the opposite, via sarcasm) that observation doesn't mean anything. Also, your study doesn't actually contradict that observation, nor did I ignore it.

I wasn't expecting you to speak for Sam. Rose Eveleth said there was rampant sexism and this is what allowed him to wear his shirt. Now, the only people that could allow Matt Taylor to wear a shirt like that is the ESA. If indeed then, there is rampant sexism in the ESA, there should be some proof of this and not mere assertion. She bears the burden of proof to prove that. As well as those that agree with her assertion. There was no proof forthcoming because there isn't any. So her assertion can be ignored. And so the assertion of sexism in the ESA became sexism in general. Hoping no one would pay attention to what was being said earlier. She (including you) forgot that not everyone is stupid.

I think you're confusing yourself and others about what exactly is being argued here. When I say "the ESA itself may not necessarily be sexist," I mean that it may not actively discriminate or explicitly act hostile towards women. But when I clarify "cultural sexism," I mean a type of ingrained thinking that implicitly holds women in less of a serious light compared to men. This, I believe, is what Eveleth was alluding to. If I'm interpreting her correctly, the very act of allowing Taylor to wear the shirt in public (and thereby be perceived as representing the agency) IS what's sexist in itself. The fact that he was allowed to wear the shirt, then, IS the proof of cultural sexism in the ESA.

There's a reason that magazine covers of scantily-clad women sell so well among men--because in many other walks of life, women are expected to cover up instead of dressing down. Women tend to have their attire policed strictly in professional workplaces. Female teachers have been fired after pictures of their scantily-clad selves from previous jobs surface. It's usually only in the illicit, secretive places like strip clubs--where men are treating women mostly as conduits for personal pleasure--that women are dressed like the depictions on the shirt. Meanwhile, a man is allowed to not only to show up for work in a shirt featuring cartoon women dressed in a manner that real women could never get away with in public, but even appear on a TV interview as a representative of the agency.

That is the most naive thing anyone could ever say. I have no idea what conservatives say about the politics of feminism, but you can read them for yourself. Be my guest and read books on feminist political theory/philosophy. There are even college courses devoted to the subject. To say you know nothing of these things is hard to believe square_peg. They would also be shocked to know you call yourself one but are not at all familiar with their political thought. If you are so inclined, read this article coming from the other side of political feminist thought. I doubt you will because you seem averse to reading things I post.

You know how "Christian politics" is an attempt to see how various types of politics fit in with a Christian worldview, rather than existing as a fixed set of dogma? The same goes for feminist politics. It's about seeing how various types of politics can fit in with ushering equality for women, not a rigid set of beliefs.

And as a matter of fact, I did read both your linked study and your linked Time op-ed. So you can feel free to stop with the personal attacks and presumptions any day now.

"Legitimately unpleasant" is subjective and therefore proof of nothing. Hardly trolling? Are tweets that usually end in calling someone she doesn't know and has never spoken to, a "butt-hole", any way to start a serious dialog? Or is it okay because, sexism? It's called fair play.

Her tweet constitutes name-calling, whereas responses that she received could be said to constitute death threats. Neither is polite or a good way to start a serious dialogue, but her received responses can hardly be labeled "fair play."

Not sure what you consider prominent. Most of this is all now aftermath. Hardly news. You are not getting my point. This oh so serious discussion had two days (I would have given it none) and now is done. You do understand for fake outrage stories, they do not last long right? I used Cosby only because it was what came to mind at the time. I could've used any new news story to show my point.

Fake outrage stories may not last long, but it doesn't follow that stories that don't last long necessarily involved fake outrage.

Well usually square_peg, when someone wants to speak on a subject they should have at least a passing familiarity with it. You want to speak on behalf of feminism, but by your own admission you have not read any feminist political thought. You wanted to make a point about there being a large gap in STEM careers between the sexes, but you never read the data that clearly shows your assumption to be false, etc..These are things that you should know before getting into a debate.

I'm not speaking on behalf of feminism so much as speaking against perceived sexism. Your study's data doesn't show my point about there being a gap to be false; it merely reports that the gap has been closing. The report itself acknowledges that women are still underrepresented.

You've backed up your claims with assumptions based on emotion. That is only opinion. I actually gave you a study to research in order to show where you are wrong. Yet you did not read it. For if you had, you would've stopped making the same errors you continue to make. I am not going to give you more when you were unwilling to read what I already gave you. It is a waste of both of our time. You on the other hand gave me a link to something I wasn't even contesting.

1) Pointing out that boys and girls have different expectations imposed upon them from an early age is not "an assumption based on emotion."
2) Once again, I did read your study, and it doesn't show that I was wrong, but rather just pessimistic regarding the magnitude.
3) I thought you were asking for proof of sexism in the sciences earlier, so I literally gave you proof of sexism in the sciences--that real women report having experienced sexism in the sciences. Since you specified that you wanted it for the ESA specifically, I'll drop that point for now. But it's still relevant to the larger context.

What objection? I was pointing out that you were not giving fair weight to other factors. Only when they were brought up did you acknowledge them. And this goes to my point of you not being familiar with the things you want to pontificate on. Those other factors are not some arcane knowledge you only get when you join a secret society. They are things you should already know and take into account when you want to speak on gender roles. I think those who are in agreement with me are being very generous here. You take your same attitude of this issue to a place that knows a great deal more and includes even more factors in detail, not going to be a good time for you.

So because I didn't specifically mention them, you assume that I didn't consider those possible factors at all. That's essentially an interpretation from silence.

No. You said that I "keep vaguely insisting "IT'S ULTIMATELY BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT"". Of which I have not done. I said they were factors among others that you did not take into account. And then you lament the fact that no one is providing specifics. Even though you have shown no willingness to read what is given you. So why would anyone waste their time?

But I did take them into account, and you seemed to be strongly suggesting that you do, in fact, definitively believe that biology and environment were more significant factors than cultural sexism. Hopefully this clarifies things for you so you can stop spending more time attacking my character on the false charges of not reading what was given.

[fm93]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...boys-toys.html

The team found that the males spent more time playing with wheeled toys, while the females played with both plush and wheeled toys equally.

If anything, it supports my argument. Assuming that the monkey results can be extrapolated to human beings, females are not wired to favor a specific set of norms over another. Hence, there should be more female representation in the hard science and technology fields.

[Darth Executor]

The team found that the males spent more time playing with wheeled toys, while the females played with both plush and wheeled toys equally.

The amount of time isn't the only (or even the most important) factor, what they do with the toys also matter. Watch the short clip in the linked article. "Equally" is an approximation anyway, females had a slight preference for female toys.

If anything, it supports my argument. Assuming that the monkey results can be extrapolated to human beings,

It can, to a point. There is more sexual dymorphism in humans than in rhesus monkeys so gender differences are even more visible in humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...786/figure/F1/

females are not wired to favor a specific set of norms over another. Hence, there should be more female representation in the hard science and technology fields.

If men prefer tech and women don't then you will see a significantly higher male presence in tech. Just like real life.

Here's a more detailed paper covering the subject in greater detail. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553

The point wasn't to extrapolate interest in certain toys to a preference for hard sciences anyway. Rather, it was to show that the claim that toy preferences are a result of social pressure is wrong. It's probably the other way around, we inherited these traits from before we were even homo sapiens and our cultures evolved to enforce those roles.

[Jesse]

That's simply not the case. Observation doesn't always tell everything, but it clearly does tell us something, contrary to your earlier claim (phrased as the opposite, via sarcasm) that observation doesn't mean anything. Also, your study doesn't actually contradict that observation, nor did I ignore it.

And this is a perfect example of you not reading what I post to you. I never said "observation doesn't mean anything". You can clearly see (since you quoted me) I said "Observation alone tells you nothing". This is becoming a habit of yours.

If you think the study doesn't contradict your observation, would you like to tell us what the study says on the spatial-ability between men and women from children to teen years?

I think you're confusing yourself and others about what exactly is being argued here. When I say "the ESA itself may not necessarily be sexist," I mean that it may not actively discriminate or explicitly act hostile towards women. But when I clarify "cultural sexism," I mean a type of ingrained thinking that implicitly holds women in less of a serious light compared to men. This, I believe, is what Eveleth was alluding to. If I'm interpreting her correctly, the very act of allowing Taylor to wear the shirt in public (and thereby be perceived as representing the agency) IS what's sexist in itself. The fact that he was allowed to wear the shirt, then, IS the proof of cultural sexism in the ESA.

There's a reason that magazine covers of scantily-clad women sell so well among men--because in many other walks of life, women are expected to cover up instead of dressing down. Women tend to have their attire policed strictly in professional workplaces. Female teachers have been fired after pictures of their scantily-clad selves from previous jobs surface. It's usually only in the illicit, secretive places like strip clubs--where men are treating women mostly as conduits for personal pleasure--that women are dressed like the depictions on the shirt. Meanwhile, a man is allowed to not only to show up for work in a shirt featuring cartoon women dressed in a manner that real women could never get away with in public, but even appear on a TV interview as a representative of the agency.

Again. Would you like to prove that there is this "ingrained thinking" at the EAS? So the fact that the ESA has a casual (maybe non existent) dress code is sexist? Wow okay. Odd that you would say that, then roll yours eyes at the very idea that there are those that see sexism everywhere. Hmm...I wonder what you would call that.

You know how "Christian politics" is an attempt to see how various types of politics fit in with a Christian worldview, rather than existing as a fixed set of dogma? The same goes for feminist politics. It's about seeing how various types of politics can fit in with ushering equality for women, not a rigid set of beliefs.

And as a matter of fact, I did read both your linked study and your linked Time op-ed. So you can feel free to stop with the personal attacks and presumptions any day now.

Wow. That is really good square_peg! And to think all of this time you kept saying you didn't know what "feminist politics" was. Either you read a few things quickly, or I was correct that you were feigning ignorance after all. I am sure me pointing that out to you is now a personal attack.

I am glad that you read it and you can now see the differences in political feminism that you say you are not familiar with.

Her tweet constitutes name-calling, whereas responses that she received could be said to constitute death threats. Neither is polite or a good way to start a serious dialogue, but her received responses can hardly be labeled "fair play."

You do have one thing right, It wasn't a good way for her to start a serious dialogue. Which makes it seem that just maybe, this wasn't about wanting to have a serious dialogue. Since we both agree that anyone in a professional setting would not start a conversation like that.

I guess we will see how serious she sees those "could be" death threats. My money is on nothing will come of it. I wonder why that would be?

Fake outrage stories may not last long, but it doesn't follow that stories that don't last long necessarily involved fake outrage.

No, you are correct. Not all short lasting stories are fake outrage, but all fake outrage stories are short lasting. That again is where discernment comes into play.

I'm not speaking on behalf of feminism so much as speaking against perceived sexism. Your study's data doesn't show my point about there being a gap to be false; it merely reports that the gap has been closing. The report itself acknowledges that women are still underrepresented.

Again here you are correct. The study shows that the gap is shortening. But no one said there wasn't a gap. Your contention was that the gap exists because of "cultural sexism". That, the study shows to be false. And that is what we have been debating.

1) Pointing out that boys and girls have different expectations imposed upon them from an early age is not "an assumption based on emotion."
2) Once again, I did read your study, and it doesn't show that I was wrong, but rather just pessimistic regarding the magnitude.
3) I thought you were asking for proof of sexism in the sciences earlier, so I literally gave you proof of sexism in the sciences--that real women report having experienced sexism in the sciences. Since you specified that you wanted it for the ESA specifically, I'll drop that point for now. But it's still relevant to the larger context.

1. No you didn't read the study or you would know it shows you are wrong. Again, what does it say about the spatial-ability between men and women from children to their teen years?

2. Read above.

3. Again proving you still refuse to read a word I say. I told you and Sam at the very beginning to give me evidence of rampant sexism in the sciences. This mistake you both made on a continuous basis and are still making. Like I said earlier, I am still waiting for this proof.

You should have dropped it from the very beginning. It was stupid to claim the ESA is suffering from "cultural sexism" without proof. But this canard you are hanging on to for dear life. Why I have no idea.

So because I didn't specifically mention them, you assume that I didn't consider those possible factors at all. That's essentially an interpretation from silence.

No. You seemed utterly unaware of them. You certainly didn't bring them up at anytime to help your point. So you either knew of these factors but didn't bring them up because you knew they were counter to your case, or you didn't give any real thought to them at all. You pick.

But I did take them into account, and you seemed to be strongly suggesting that you do, in fact, definitively believe that biology and environment were more significant factors than cultural sexism. Hopefully this clarifies things for you so you can stop spending more time attacking my character on the false charges of not reading what was given.

And how exactly did I give a strong suggestion? I brought up biology and environment. Plus a few others that struck me. No where did I give a weighting of any of those factors. I have no idea how strong biology factors in from environment, or environment from skill, etc.

I guess you think I brought the factor of biology up first and then said environment second in my list, that is what put them in order of importance to you? Strange way of looking at it but okay.

[Jesse]

The amount of time...

I would forget it Darth Executor. I really don't think he cares about what any available data has to say.

[fm93]

It can, to a point. There is more sexual dymorphism in humans than in rhesus monkeys so gender differences are even more visible in humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...786/figure/F1/

Perhaps. This, at least, is more in line with what I was asking to see earlier. But I should be clear that I'm not definitively claiming that it supports a side either way, and instead am wary about what conclusions can be drawn. For instance, the report below did list the possibility of color as a factor rather than necessarily it's perceived "male or female" status.

If men prefer tech and women don't then you will see a significantly higher male presence in tech. Just like real life.

But it's not really the case that women inherently don't prefer technology. It's that women are open to a variety of fields, yet for some reason society pushes them towards those other fields more often than they push them towards technology. At the very least, being open to both suggests to me that they should also be encouraged towards technology at a higher rate.

[fm93]

And this is a perfect example of you not reading what I post to you. I never said "observation doesn't mean anything". You can clearly see (since you quoted me) I said "Observation alone tells you nothing".

I beg to differ:

You have "it's been long observed". Like that means anything at all here.

You certainly didn't specify "alone" in that sentence, and besides, you're still incorrect--observation alone is not worthless.

If you think the study doesn't contradict your observation, would you like to tell us what the study says on the spatial-ability between men and women from children to teen years?

It reports the long-observed () fact that boys evince advantages over girls in conceptual exercises involving three-dimensional spatial rotation, but adds that the advantage margin between the sexes decreases with age, is not particularly significant when it comes to two-dimensional spatial rotation, is basically non-existent or even skewed towards girls in other types of spatial ability tasks, and varies across nationality and ethnicity (with some evincing female advantage). In other words, this is hardly proof that innate sex differences are the primary cause, or that women shouldn't be encouraged more often to strive for the hard sciences if they feel inclined.

Again. Would you like to prove that there is this "ingrained thinking" at the EAS? So the fact that the ESA has a casual (maybe non existent) dress code is sexist? Wow okay.

Do you believe the ESA would allow actual women to represent the agency in an interview while dressed like the depictions on the shirt? Besides, even if they did, why allow and thereby implicitly condone open depictions of scantily-clad women at all?

Odd that you would say that, then roll yours eyes at the very idea that there are those that see sexism everywhere. Hmm...I wonder what you would call that.

Seeing it in areas where you don't see it doesn't equate to seeing it everywhere. It's called having a grasp of nuance.

Wow. That is really good square_peg! And to think all of this time you kept saying you didn't know what "feminist politics" was. Either you read a few things quickly, or I was correct that you were feigning ignorance after all. I am sure me pointing that out to you is now a personal attack.

I am glad that you read it and you can now see the differences in political feminism that you say you are not familiar with.

No, earlier you were acting as if there was a fixed, codified set of feminist political beliefs, which there isn't.

But no one said there wasn't a gap. Your contention was that the gap exists because of "cultural sexism". That, the study shows to be false. And that is what we have been debating.

Except that the study does not show my contention to be false; the two in fact seem to be compatible.

1. No you didn't read the study or you would know it shows you are wrong. Again, what does it say about the spatial-ability between men and women from children to their teen years?

2. Read above.

3. Again proving you still refuse to read a word I say. I told you and Sam at the very beginning to give me evidence of rampant sexism in the sciences. This mistake you both made on a continuous basis and are still making. Like I said earlier, I am still waiting for this proof.

I have addressed the first two points, and as for the third, you're asking for the generic "evidence of sexism in the sciences" again, rather than specifically the ESA, in which case the many reports of women scientists who say they've experienced sexism in the workplace is indeed proof.

No. You seemed utterly unaware of them. You certainly didn't bring them up at anytime to help your point. So you either knew of these factors but didn't bring them up because you knew they were counter to your case, or you didn't give any real thought to them at all. You pick.

You still keep insisting that those are the only possibilities, and that not mentioning them automatically equals not knowing them? Talk about being narrow-minded.

And how exactly did I give a strong suggestion? I brought up biology and environment. Plus a few others that struck me. No where did I give a weighting of any of those factors. I have no idea how strong biology factors in from environment, or environment from skill, etc.

I guess you think I brought the factor of biology up first and then said environment second in my list, that is what put them in order of importance to you? Strange way of looking at it but okay.

You certainly don't seem to believe that cultural sexism is a significant factor, so I assumed that you believe the two (not necessarily in the order of biology and then environment) are more significant factors.

[Jesse]

I beg to differ:

You certainly didn't specify "alone" in that sentence, and besides, you're still incorrect--observation alone is not worthless.

You can choose to do that. Or you can be honest with what I said. What does mere observation have to do with what we are talking about here? That is what I said, is it not?

You are correct, I said this in my second rebuttal to you as a clarification since you seemed confused by what I said. For some reason though, you do not take sentences in totality. You cherry pick my words then spend an unhealthy amount of time trying to twist and dissect them. So it is clear once more, your assumption that "observation" alone as being adequate is simply untrue.

Science does not work that way. Observation is what comes first. Then experimentation and data gathering to support a hypothesis based on the observation comes second. Nothing stops after mere observation. Maybe to you observation is enough, but if we are talking about an issue (gender differences in this example) that relies on data gathering and experimentation, it's not enough.

It reports the long-observed fact that boys evince advantages over girls in conceptual exercises involving three-dimensional spatial rotation, but adds that the advantage margin between the sexes decreases with age, is not particularly significant when it comes to two-dimensional spatial rotation, is basically non-existent or even skewed towards girls in other types of spatial ability tasks, and varies across nationality and ethnicity (with some evincing female advantage). In other words, this is hardly proof that innate sex differences are the primary cause, or that women shouldn't be encouraged more often to strive for the hard sciences if they feel inclined.

Indeed you are correct. But let me quote some of the things you didn't mention. For it is greatly important to the issue at hand. I specifically want to tackle your assumption that cultural sexism and gender roles are reinforced at an early age with things like toys. First here is their conclusion of spatial-ability:

Source: psychologicalscience.org

Even though there is a sex gap at the right tail of the math-ability distribution, as Hyde et al. (2008), Lohman and Lakin (2009), Stoet and Geary (2013), and Wai et al. (2010) have amply documented, the extent of this gap is mutable, changing over time and across ethnicities, states, and nations, and dependent on environments and the salience of stereotypes.

© Copyright Original Source

As you said, this varies across multiple factors. Including stereotypes (cultural sexism). Here comes the important part. On stereotypes:

Source: psychologicalscience.org

Surveys report that when boys and girls are asked whether they are interested in becoming engineers or computer scientists, about a quarter of boys indicate that they are whereas fewer than 5% of girls express interest greatly preferring careers as physicians, veterinarians, teachers, nurses, and so on. For example, one poll of 8 to 17-year-olds showed that 24% of boys were interested in engineering versus only 5% of girls; a survey of 13 to 17-year-olds showed that 74% of boys were interested in computer science versus only 32% of girls (see Hill et al., 2010, p. 38, for citations). Legewie and DiPrete (2012a) argued that these early preferences are not stable until high school and do not predict later gender segregation in college majors, but they nevertheless reveal pronounced early gender stereotyping and career choices. Sex differences in math and science orientation/identification begins to solidify after middle school. Among high school students, we observe differences in interest in STEM courses and in expectations of STEM majors.

© Copyright Original Source

The conclusion is that STEM stereotypes between the sexes do not begin to form and take hold until after middle school. They become more prominent during high school years. Before that, the research shows there is no difference in spatial-ability. So, expecting a boy to play with a chemistry set and a girl to play with a barbie doll has no effect on the early years of development. Their ultimate choices do not take hold until much later.

If you would like even more proof of this, here it is:

Source: psychologicalscience.org

Having documented the rather pronounced sex differences at the right tail of the mathematics distribution, it is important to add a caveat:

There are a number of examples of inconsistency in the gender ratios at the right tail, and these divergences are also based on large national samples and meta-analyses (Becker & Hedges, 1984; Friedman, 1989; Hyde et al., 1990; Hyde & Linn, 2006; Hyde & Mertz, 2009). We have reviewed much of this literature elsewhere (Ceci et al., 2009), pointing out countries in which females are at parity with or even excel over males at the right tail (e.g., in Iceland, Singapore, and Indonesia, more girls than boys scored at the top 1% at certain ages). Hyde and Mertz’s (2009) review revealed that the magnitude of the male advantage at the right tail has been decreasing, more in some countries than in others, and the greater male variance in math scores is not ubiquitous, as we have seen above. In Lohman and Lakin’s (2009) data, showing impressive consistency in male advantage at the right tail on many cognitive measures, females appear to have narrowed the gap at the right tail on the Cognitive Abilities Test Non-Verbal Battery over the same time period.

© Copyright Original Source

I don't think anyone would argue that Singapore or Indonesia has less "cultural sexism" than we do. But their females excel in STEM far above their males. And this is what you would expect to find if early gender stereotypes have no real effect on the outcome of what males and females decide to choose as careers. So that means other factors are much more important.

The study seems to point to biology, environment, and early learning skills as a much larger factor. For the simple fact that they give little weight or time to stereotypes tells you as much. Again, how much weight do I put into it? I think factors other than early stereotypes are more important as shown, but I don't know by how much.

Do you believe the ESA would allow actual women to represent the agency in an interview while dressed like the depictions on the shirt? Besides, even if they did, why allow and thereby implicitly condone open depictions of scantily-clad women at all?

How would I know? I have no idea what the dress code of the ESA is and neither do you. Considering women by and large do not wear that type of attire in or out of professional settings, I don't see how that matters. I guess if you think it is wrong for the guy to dress casually like a guy does, then yeah you would see a problem.

Seeing it in areas where you don't see it doesn't equate to seeing it everywhere. It's called having a grasp of nuance.

Seeing it in the lack of a standard dress code however does. You must be real fun at barbecues . I like that you pretend to know what nuance is though.

No, earlier you were acting as if there was a fixed, codified set of feminist political beliefs, which there isn't.

Oh I see. So we are suppose to just ignore how often you said you didn't know what I was referring too when I said "feminist politics". But of course, you did know what I was talking about. Trying deflection doesn't make it look any better you know.

Except that the study does not show my contention to be false; the two in fact seem to be compatible.

Yes it does. No they aren't.

I have addressed the first two points, and as for the third, you're asking for the generic "evidence of sexism in the sciences" again, rather than specifically the ESA, in which case the many reports of women scientists who say they've experienced sexism in the workplace is indeed proof.

No, I am not looking for generic evidence. I am looking for specific evidence of what she said. You nor her have any proof of rampant sexism in STEM. You gotta get over this.

You still keep insisting that those are the only possibilities, and that not mentioning them automatically equals not knowing them? Talk about being narrow-minded.

Okay I'll bite. Why didn't you bring up the factors of biology, environment, skill, etc. to this debate where they would've been extremely pertinent to this discussion of gender roles and stereotypes?

You certainly don't seem to believe that cultural sexism is a significant factor, so I assumed that you believe the two (not necessarily in the order of biology and then environment) are more significant factors.

Already answered. I have no idea how significant any of the factors are. I would lean more toward the other factors I mentioned previously because that is where the scientific data is pointing to. Again, YOU are the only one giving a weighted measure of which factor is ultimately important by pointing out "cultural sexism" and only that.

[Darth Executor]

Perhaps. This, at least, is more in line with what I was asking to see earlier. But I should be clear that I'm not definitively claiming that it supports a side either way, and instead am wary about what conclusions can be drawn. For instance, the report below did list the possibility of color as a factor rather than necessarily it's perceived "male or female" status.

It's brought up as a possible factor in an older study (with a different type of monkey at all) and not relevant to the newer studies I linked.

But it's not really the case that women inherently don't prefer technology.

Yes it is. Preference ratios are a zero sum game.

It's that women are open to a variety of fields,

So are men.

yet for some reason society pushes them towards those other fields more often than they push them towards technology.

I don't even believe this is true. Society and culture are run by progressives who blare egalitarian garbage 24/7. The girl I knew in college is one victim of this policy.

At the very least, being open to both suggests to me that they should also be encouraged towards technology at a higher rate.

Why does society need to encourage women towards technology? Even if it didn't do any damage it's a waste of money and time as women have no discernible special aptitude towards engineering or computer science or math that makes this a worthwhile pursuit.

[Jesse]

So I did a bit more research and found some more data for you, square_peg. This seems to compliment the research that Darth Executor link too.

Source: infantcognition.tamu.edu

Abstract

Evidence indicating that sex-linked toy preferences exist in two nonhuman primate species support the hypothesis that developmental sex differences such as those observed in children’s object preferences are shaped in part by inborn factors. If so, then preferences for sex-linked toys may emerge in children before any self-awareness of gender identity and gender–congruent behavior.

In order to test this hypothesis, interest in a doll and a toy truck was measured in 30 infants ranging in age from 3 to 8 months using eye-tracking technology that provides precise indicators of visual attention. Consistent with primary hypothesis, sex differences in visual interest in sex-linked toys were found, such that girls showed a visual preference (d > 1.0) for the doll over the toy truck and boys compared to girls showed a greater number of visual fixations on the truck (d = .78).

Our findings suggest that the conceptual categories of ‘‘masculine’’ and ‘‘feminine’’ toys are preceded by sex differences in the preferences for perceptual features associated with such objects. The existence of these innate preferences for object features coupled with well-documented social influences may explain why toy preferences are one of the earliest known manifestations of sex-linked social behavior.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

So it seems pretty clear what all of this data is pointing to. The toys that children are given have no affect on what their later roles will be. As the study I linked to has shown. And if anything, those preferences seem to be innate in children, as this and Darth's study has shown. Your "observations" have very little scientific backing.

[Sparko]

I find it ironic that feminists who want equality in everything, when faced with a scientific breakthrough, choose to focus on how someone is dressed rather than on their accomplishment. It's like they are furthering the stereotype that all women think about is clothes and makeup and looking pretty.

[Leonhard]

I find it ironic that feminists who want equality in everything, when faced with a scientific breakthrough, choose to focus on how someone is dressed rather than on their accomplishment. It's like they are furthering the stereotype that all women think about is clothes and makeup and looking pretty.

That's actually a fairly bad strawmen of them Sparko. Feminists such as Skepchicks, etc, have talked about the probe and the science behind it. There's just a bigger issue behind this, namely the awful environment for women in the science and engineering fields, so many other feminists pick up the wearing of that shirt.

[Sparko]

That's actually a fairly bad strawmen of them Sparko. Feminists such as Skepchicks, etc, have talked about the probe and the science behind it. There's just a bigger issue behind this, namely the awful environment for women in the science and engineering fields, so many other feminists pick up the wearing of that shirt.

I wasn't making an argument so your strawman comment doesn't make sense. I was stating an opinion. Rather that focus on real issues of equality between genders, they choose to focus on clothing.