MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 4 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
- artappraiser (167)
- PeraclesPlease (161)
- artappraiser (115)
- artappraiser (108)
- artappraiser (92)
What Makes a Woman?
By ocean-kat on Sun, 06/07/2015 - 4:46pm |I have fought for many of my 68 years against efforts to put women — our brains, our hearts, our bodies, even our moods — into tidy boxes, to reduce us to hoary stereotypes. Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.
That’s the kind of nonsense that was used to repress women for centuries. But the desire to support people like Ms. Jenner and their journey toward their truest selves has strangely and unwittingly brought it back.
URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?ref=todayspaper
- Add new comment
- 10574 reads
Comments
I could ramble on about this topic but instead I would just recommend everyone read Judith Butler's Gender Trouble and Bodies that Matter.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 12:11am
Starting a discussion about gender based on the Kardashians is certainly the wrong foot, and a transgender Kardashian even worse.
Diving into the misrepresented trope about women making half the pay also doesn't help (school teachers make less money because they get summers off; women often make career decisions based on time off for mothering and dealing with kids - which is job benefit traded for pay)
The Vagina Monologues bit is an indication how much women are forced to deal with themselves as largely their sexual bits - whether they're Prime Minister or head of a corporation or a clerk or stay-at-home mom - and those sexual bits are often treated as shameful and sinful. Yeah, that's a nice load of low-confidence that directly pitches itself against "strive for success" - nature or nurture, or nature vs. shaming? Guess the closest males get is circumcision for "sanitizing" that dirty member, but since it's over before we're much aware, it just becomes the new norm.
Larry Summers was right to ask the questions he did - women's brains do seem to be wired differently (laterally vs. longitudinally) - no idea if Jenner's or the typical transgender's is. Women are suspected of multitasking better - that should be a positive which excels in more than just mommie tasks, including project management, team building, et al. - presuming the team doesn't waste its energy looking at her breasts. In any case, Summers got blasted by the PC and shut down for just daring to itemize 3 major explanations/theories for lower female presence in STEM, which would seem to be the norm for any kind of academic exploratory exercise. If he'd blamed it on "Little Eichmanns", academia would have been more forgiving.
I'm surrounded by pretty amazing females who often surprise me at their organizational ability. I've dealt with raising girls who drifted towards stereotypes but still have their own non-cupie-doll aesthetic - i.e. they can be a variety of things, including stereotypes and gonzo whatevers at the same time. I'm constantly worried about the return of what I thought was an outdate 50's aesthetic only to find much of the equality of the 60's/70's was just temporary.
I do find there are things that I do much better related to certain types of scientific/math-logic/abstract thinking than my wife, this weekend another occasion for me to see that, and occasionally my obsessive focused mind is better for a task than one that balances all the other stuff that needs to be done. Of course there are more female CTOs, engineers, designers, etc. so the % that a male brain *possibly* could be *more frequently* attuned to certain types of work is not necessarily borne out by the actual figures in practice - Darwinian selection usually deals in very small differences over many generations. Societal pressures and restrictions are far from being pure natural determinants of ability or affinity.
And despite all the promise for the internet generation, women get to do 2 jobs at least, maybe more since they now get to be internet librarian for medical issues, scheduling, doing their own Facebook, etc. Some day some where things are supposed to get easier for women, but believe it when you see it.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 4:24am
Is the female brain wired differently, or do early life experiences teach women that science is not something they should pursue? Do we encourage scientific inquiry at a young age to the same degrees as we do for male children? Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about the roadblocks he faced when he indicated an interest in astrophysics. Could the same roadblocks explain the lower numbers of women interested in science? Are female scientists being lured by better salaries and working conditions in industry as opposed to academics? Only after controlling for a host of societal issues can you conclude that female brains keep them from excelling at mathematics. The number of women in medicine is increasing, what is the dynamic that led to that increase. We have gone from women not being "suited" for medicine, to an era when female physicians are more common. Did female brains change?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 9:01am
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 3:42pm
The changes were "statically significant" but have no proven significant clinical effect, meaning that no conclusion can be made about these so-called wiring differences (with major intra-gender variability) and an impact on math, physics, etc.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 4:08pm
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 4:31pm
Not assuming anything. The basis for study should be the null hypothesis. You begin with the idea that there should be no differences in young children in math skills. If girls are doing addition , subtraction, multiplication and division the same, the null hypothesis is satisfied. If changes are noted in trigonometry, geometry, and algebra, are the differences truly because of different brain function or societal pressure? Are parents, etc encouraging girls who are enthused by math, or are the girls discouraged? Do teachers show preference to boys over the girls? Is there a level playing field for both sexes?
If girls are being discouraged, how do we change the situation? Do girls need a completely different environment? Tackling things going on in school may produce more female mathematicians. Brain imaging studies have made significant progress, but let us not fool ourselves into believing that 20-50 years down the road current techniques for studying brain function will be ridiculed.
Study brain function because it will lead to better methods of assessing thought processes in the future. Don't neglect outside influence on how humans behave and what fields of study are considered "acceptable" for women. Evaluate sociology, psychology, and neurobiology. The female wiring "changes" described in current articles may be the equivalent of brain plate capacity of blacks prevalent in the antebellum period.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 5:10pm
Another important issue is that studies have to be reproducible. Just because one investigator found these lateral connections statistically significant despite variation with the sexes, doesn't mean they will be found to be gender- specific by another investigator. The study could be flawed. In fact, the article notes that another investigator argues that the article's raw data shows that the methodology used to assess the difference in connection was flawed. The article suggests something interesting, but unless others find the same results, the article is not worth the paper it is printed on. Science relies on the reproducible. Women's brains are not defined by one publication.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 6:34pm
Yawn - nothing is provable, nothing can be diagnosed, all is a mystery.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 1:58am
A consensus can be reached after serious study. Take climate change, there are studies indicating that there is no climate change and that man has no impact on the climate. These studies are countered multiple studies showing that climate change is real and that man impacts the climate. An isolated study rarely has the power to be considered definitive.
The is a field of study that does research on the overall accuracy and reproducibility of scientific studies. One method used to assess the accuracy of studies to to perform an analysis of the findings of multiple studies looking a similar populations, a meta-analysis. If the bulk of studies indicate a positive response to an intervention, that intervention is considered effective. The other analysis performed is reproducibility. If other investigators find a difference in neural connections, the study under discussion would be confirmed. It should be noted that about 10-25% of scientific studies in basic science labs reported in the literature are reproducible. About 30% of clinical studies initially deemed important are later found to be wrong or exaggerated.
Most isolated studies will note that further research is need to confirm the findings of the investigators. Many journals have editorials that address the questions that remain after the findings reported in the paper. Editorials also address design flaws that call the findings into question.
Here is a link to an interview with a Stanford scientist who is a pioneer in assessing validity of medical research papers from Vox
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8034143/john-ioannidis-interview
Science includes questioning results.
Edit to add:
Here is the editor of the Lancet saying that half of medical findings may be untrue
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696...
Here is another article geared for the lay public in the Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-c...
"Trust but verify"
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 8:14am
"Just Give Up"
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:59am
Here is something more on your level for how a finding becomes accepted as scientific fact. The women's wiring study quoted above has not reached that level. I noted that one investigator used the same data can came to a different conclusion. This may help you realize that studies have to be repeated to be validated.
http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html
Hope that helps.
Edit to add:
Here is a recent example of an article published in a respectable journal that had to be retracted. Other scientists questioned the results as the natural course in scientific research.
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/347731/science-retracts-research-t...
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:29am
More evidence of structural differences (thousands of samples over decades):
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/males-and-females-differ-in-specific-brain-structures
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 2:39pm
There is overlap in the brain studies.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=3
Nurture vs. Nature
Edit to add:
The specific study noting special lateral connections remains open to question. The study may or may not be validated.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 3:12pm
The bottom line is that when a girl shows up for math class or a boy shows up for an English class, we don't know their individual skill level. We could have a future female astrophysicist or a future male novelist. The brain studies don't help us approach the individual. We could be discourage the woman with excellent spatial orientation or suppress the man who could write a great piece of literature. The overlap in brain structure is the wild card.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 3:47pm
Structure differences may or may not be important. Males are at higher risk of autism. Is that because of defective structure of the male brain? Females have an increased ability to compensate for genetic defects that led to autism in males. Is genetics more important than structure? Are females with autism demonstrating genetic markers that indicate that male siblings will develop autism and structure is unimportant? Other studies note that female brains with more male structure are at higher risk of autism. Is structure more important than genetics?
The tests we have for assessing brain function and causes of diseases is in a primitive phase. There is a complex interplay between gender, genetics, and structure that we do not understand.
Edit to add:
I'm adding this article about the male chauvinist attitudes publicly expressed by a Nobel Prize winning scientist. I provide it as an example of the type of oppression female scientists face even at the upper realms of science. I stand by my statement that there is variation in brain structure that mean that an individual woman is qualified to compete at any level of science. Those women may ace discrimination. Those societal issues cannot be dismissed.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/nobel-prize-winning-bio...
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/10/2015 - 12:16am
3 of the most important scientists of the last century included Lise Meitner who discovered fusion (without being allowed a paying position, the woman who discovered jumping genes, and Marie Curie. I'm not arguing at all about whether women can excel in science. I'm noting that there are typically mild structural brain differences, and that typically evolution changes structure for an evolutionary (not logical human) reason, and those differences should be better understood. Whether it has anything to do with parallel parking or bad credit is the least interesting of what those differences mean, and obviously societal pressures & biases still exist that are irrelevant to physical differences. *BUT WE CAN AND SHOULD UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT STANDARD GENDER PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES* - that's simply scientific curiosity. Pretending they don't exist or just assuming they make no difference is just hopelessly incurious, while going in assuming they support some specific hypothesis of behavior without testing directly and thoroughly for that hypothesis is pseudo-science. But in early days, a lot of half-baked hypotheses can be launched specifically to refute or to find evidence for - science is gradual.
The jumping genes discovery is a huge example of the curiosity of nature - what seems logical is often not at a low level, so we have to approach science with open minds and precise measurements.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/10/2015 - 2:16am
Physical differences are not under discussion. Curiosity about the world includes evaluating the bias noted in some fields of study. Women and minorities were largely excluded from medicine, for example. The opinion cloaked as science justified the exclusion. The male chauvinist attitude shown by a Nobel Prize winner is not uncommon. How many women are discouraged from advancing in science because of bias?
Regarding sciences dependent spatial orientation, there is overlap with many women doing "as well as" men. What are the structural characteristics and genetics of these women? Could it be that these women have the same brain structures as other women but faced encouragement in pursuing an interest in science? Did they merely play catch with their parents as children to enhance spatial orientation?
Part of the subtle bias is that much of the focus is on what is the "defect" that causes decreased spatial orientation in women. Males are much more likely to develop autism. Male brain are considered the norm so the query is not generally about why is the male brain defective, instead it is the standard.
The subtle bias about things like spatial orientation in women will have some finding that the women in their lives all have poor spatial orientation skills.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/10/2015 - 8:02am
I thought physical (brain) differences were the only interesting thing to discuss - everything else has been talked to death, including social indoctrination of women, lack of opportunity, bias, etc. I didn't phrase anything as "the norm" or "the standard" or even "defect" rather than "what can we do better?"
But thanks for staying on my ass to be contrary and try to shut me down whatever I write - everyone can use an enforcer - you're a real joy to be around. Guess terms of the discussion have to be yours.
[more I'd say that no women showing up for this joyless conversation signifies it went aground pretty quickly]
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/10/2015 - 2:43pm
I do admit that given your comments on other issues, I frequently don't view your words in the most benign terms.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/10/2015 - 3:15pm
I think the aspect I have to disagree with you is your dividing it the genders into just two groups: male and female. There are definitely biological differences between a male and a female, such as females tend to have more connections between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. But it is this tendency that needs to be recognized. What we view as female and male attributes are, as one person who I can't remember his name put it, the tendencies are just that and fall along some kind of bell curve.
There are women with higher than normal testosterone and males with higher than normal of estrogen. On many occasions I've seen female adults with a higher tendency toward aggression and violence and males who have a more feeling and nurturing engagement with other people and the world around them.
Of course genetics always interplay with the nurture and environment. Moreover, traumatic event(s) can alter the entire psyche of a person, as can substance abuse.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 12:26pm
Harvard astronomer Charles Pickering choose women as his human computers for calculating measurements in the early days of modern astronomy. Pickering supported the Suffrage movement and felt that modern educated women were up to the task. The role of these women was largely lost to history. If society sends out a message that a certain set of skills is not desirable in women, many women will focus on other skills. A scientific observer will then interpret findings from still primitive neurological assessments as determine that women can't handle math or other science because of biological not social reasons. A father is certain that he sees a lack of certain math skills in his daughters may send a subtle message that science or math is not in his children's possible futures
"Science" has been used to rationalization a whole host of differences. Science is used to explain that there are no black world-class swimmers because blacks have higher bone density. This analysis overlooks the absence of swimming pools in most areas with high black occupancy. When swimming pool barriers are removed, we begin to the the emergence of black swimmers.
Society should be encouraging children's inquisitive nature to explore new realms. Black children and women should not face roadblocks in attaining their goals in science or elsewhere. Often we find the science used to create a stereotype is flawed.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 1:04pm
I am reminded of a huge uproar when some celebrity said she let her toddler son paint his toenails. He liked the colors. I couldn't find out who this was, but here another parent in the Washington Post dealing with the same uproar.
by Elusive Trope on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 1:25pm
Jeez I hope this does not sound cheap, for such a fine blog?
by Richard Day on Mon, 06/08/2015 - 8:28pm
Edie Sedgwick?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 2:01am
And where is Andy? hahaha
Oh the past....
by Richard Day on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 2:28am
Dylan didn't like Andy - erased him just like he erased Edie. Eraserhead.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 8:24am
It seems people here are willing to comment about anything but the subject of this post. The shallowness of Jenner's comments and the patriarchal sexism of his Hollywood Pin-Up coming-out including airbrushing to enhance his allure is telling as much as the fawning responses for his bravery and the authoritarian reactions to women who question this male driven exploitation/expropriation of womanhood.
I wonder why we haven't seen glorifying reports about women who have transitioned into men? Where are the sexy photo shoots of hairy and flat chested trans men with their artificial organs tucked suggestively into their Speedo?
by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 2:36pm
Oh I just caught this link at Huffpo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/jeb-bush-1995-book_n_7542964.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
How can the state shame a single mother and not shame the father?
Anyway, Jeb Bush is a craphead!
THE SCARLET LETTER?
by Richard Day on Tue, 06/09/2015 - 4:43pm