Female vs Male Talents

RainbowRed

Hey all!

This is a bit of an age old question, but I find that most things that require what many people consider 'talent' are incredibly male dominated. I'm pretty sure you could take any sort of talent, and the field would be dominated by male experts. This is quite funny considering the level of genuinely talented women out there... right? Surely (considering we compose around half of any given population) the percentage should be more equitable!

Is there anything, you think, in particular that may be encouraging male dominance in these fields of 'talent'? Or are there any reasons for the lack of female visibility in them? Sure there are exceptions.. but in general.

Improbable

You hear about most of these talented people by virtue of their professional work in the area. Obviously women are more likely to take maternity leave than men so I wouldn't be surprised if raising children and deciding to not go back to work for an extended period of time might have something to do with it.

RainbowRed

but lets take a different demographic then for example, an age bracket NOT likely to be affected by the burden of maternity :rolleyes:


lets say the 15-23 bracket. i noticed myself recently when i entered a competition recently that my opposition were an enormous majority of males, something like 300 to 3.

rainbow kirby

RainbowRed wrote: »

lets say the 15-23 bracket. i noticed myself recently when i entered a competition recently that my opposition were an enormous majority of males, something like 300 to 3.

Google Code Jam?

RainbowRed

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Google Code Jam?

no actually, a competition called Guitar Idol.

You can see it here, its still running.


http://guitaridol.tv/video/435


Google Code Jam was similar then I assume?

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Two completely unrelated disciplines based on excelling at an art, but the SAME result!! An overwhelming female minority!

RainbowRed

RainbowRed wrote: »

Is there anything, you think, in particular that may be encouraging male dominance in these fields of 'talent'? .

You mean apart from girls being discouraged from anything not ladylike ??

WindSock

I think 'talent' is gender blind. However to progress with your talent you need to also be skilled, something you learn through perseverence and time. Also drive to succeed. I think that drive and time may be lost on a lot of women when the family come along.

Wibbs

Well you're talking about specific areas for a start. Programming would be an obvious one where there are more men interested in it, so more end up competing in it. Even there its more a specific kind of man involved. How many rugger bugger jock types would be at something like that?

You're also talking about extremes. A fair few studies have found that while women on average are more competent than men across the board, there are less women at the very top, even in areas where women are more represented. There are also less women dopes at the other end though. You see this more and more in third level. More women than men are getting higher marks getting into courses and doing very well. Many subjects are female dominated. Even there at the very top you will usually find a couple of men. It seems men are more extreme. More genius types, but more idiots too. Then as others have mentioned women's progress in a discipline can be sidetracked if she wants to have a family. To a degree not found in men anyway.

Pherekydes

A study conducted in the UK about German chess players found that the under representation of women players at the top was almost exactly as expected. German men outnumber women by 16:1, consequently we would expect the best players (more extreme) to come from the larger population. It's as simple as that.

In my opinion, you can replace chess with any other intellectual activity, maths, physics, etc. and you would get the same effect. Throw more of one gender at an intellectual pursuit and you will find that the geniuses tend to come from the larger populations (i.e. the male ones).

Intellectually, the genders are more or less equal in basic talent.

Forgot the add the link: Paper on study.

baby and crumble

never mind talent, in general men push themselves to be 'the best' at something, while often women either don't have that drive, and are happy to be 'good' at something, OR they get sidetracked into other things, like family concerns (not necessarily having kids, but also looking after again parents, etc)

I mean, career-wise, front-line social workers are predominantly female, however something like 70-80% of head social workers are male. Why is that? women seem to be content working on the front lines as opposed to moving into higher influence and higher stress positions... Not all, obviously, but many. Could it be that the majority of women don't want the stress of being 'the best', and having to stay 'the best'?

Wibbs

Might be hormonal too. I recall an experiment where a woman professor in her 50's in the US wore testosterone patches for a couple of months and she found she was a lot more focused when it came to faculty reviews and much less likely to back down. Other studies have shown women executives at the top of their game had higher levels of test than average, so there may be something to that. Test in general makes people more aggressive, dominant and competitive. Then again that could simply be because of the structures being more male orientated, so in order to get ahead the structure selected for more "male" traits? In "female" structure, it may well be a disadvantage.

More men suffer from conditions like Asbergers which can be socially problematic, but in some other areas may be a singular advantage. More focus put on detail and more obsessive thought. The list of great genius types that would figure on that scale would be high. This idea that women are better at multitasking another one. Personally I don't buy into it, certainly not to the degree sometimes claimed, but there is something to it. So an individual with more things in their focus at once is going to be at a disadvantage to someone else who puts all their focus into just one discipline.

liah

Men tend to be more competitive when it comes to stuff like that. Not that women aren't, but we tend to be more competitive on an emotional/mental level with each other than one of merit or achievement. It's not that they're necessarily better or worse.

LittleBook

RainbowRed wrote: »

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Two completely unrelated disciplines based on excelling at an art, but the SAME result!! An overwhelming female minority!

I'm not sure I would call those two "completely unrelated disciplines" ... music and maths are inextricably linked.

Wibbs wrote: »

A fair few studies have found that while women on average are more competent than men across the board, there are less women at the very top, even in areas where women are more represented.

I wasn't sure whether to post this in the Olwyn Enright thread or here. In fact, I think these two discussions may be inextricably linked too.

The reason why eight in 10 of those working for less than 30 hours a week in Ireland are women is directly linked to caring responsibilities. The reason why seven out of 10 managers are male is directly linked to the fact that managerial roles almost always require 40-plus hours a week, which does not combine with caring responsibilities.

Women Opting Out of the Workplace

Feeona

Big up to this brasser

http://ladiesinbrass.blogspot.com/2010/02/abbie-conant-behind-screen.html

At some orchestral interviews, candidates play their instruments behind screens (interviewers don't know if they're male or female). It was originally thought that men were physically more able to play bigger brass instruments, due to the lung capacity needed to do so. If interviewers saw a woman before them, this would immediately give the interviewers a negative impression before the woman had even played a note. Screens resulted in more women (and probably smaller men!) being hired in orchestras. I read about this in Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink, which is about those initial assumptions we make in an instant, and how those assumptions can negatively or positively affect an outcome. V. interesting!

RainbowRed

zoegh wrote: »

never mind talent, in general men push themselves to be 'the best' at something, while often women either don't have that drive, and are happy to be 'good' at something

and do you think that this is absolutely true and that, as you say, women don't possess the same drive as their male counterparts? surely thats a damning condemnation of women in a way?


i've often thought that there does seem to be an aggressive need to be alpha-whatever at anything (be it burping or playing piano), that women don't seem to possess.

Feeona

RainbowRed wrote: »

i've often thought that there does seem to be an aggressive need to be alpha-whatever at anything (be it burping or playing piano), that women don't seem to possess.

It's been said before that because men can't carry children, they therefore feel the need to make up for it by excelling at activities that aren't related to bearing children.

I think it's a load of nonsense though! Why would anyone be jealous of the physical side of having children? It's not the easiest job in the world by any stretch of the imagination (or other bits!)

baby and crumble

RainbowRed wrote:

Quote:

and do you think that this is absolutely true and that, as you say, women don't possess the same drive as their male counterparts? surely thats a damning condemnation of women in a way?

I realise when I wrote it that it could be taken up that way. I don't mean all women, I just think that in a lot of cases, being good at your job and be the best you can be is a different drive than being THE BEST. In spheres of competence I don't think women put as much emphasis at being 'better' than other people, but rather at being the best for them. I know I don't. I know that I want to be the best researcher, for example, that I can be in my career, but I don't necessarily want to be 'better' then everyone else in my field.

However when it comes to physical looks, I do thin that we, as women, put a greater emphasis on being 'the best' in a room.

Just my 2c.

LittleBook

zoegh wrote: »

never mind talent, in general men push themselves to be 'the best' at something, while often women either don't have that drive, and are happy to be 'good' at something

RainbowRed wrote: »

surely thats a damning condemnation of women in a way?

Only if you believe that aggressively pursuing the goal of being the best is the only way to have a good life. I think people, including men, are getting tired of this constant struggle to live up to other people's expectations and the never-ending competition that pervades society. You don't have to be "the best" to contribute to society and live a happy and productive life.

Maybe your original question has less to do with actually having talent than it has to do with the compulsion to prove it. Just a thought.

baby and crumble

LittleBook wrote:

Maybe your original question has less to do with actually having talent than it has to do with the compulsion to prove it. Just a thought.

Definitely this. I like that. I think that might be the key to this one. (God, that's sounds poncey... you know what I mean!!!)

ztoical

zoegh wrote: »

never mind talent, in general men push themselves to be 'the best' at something, while often women either don't have that drive, and are happy to be 'good' at something

See I can't buy this view point cus if you look at the men who are the so called best the majority are still 'white' - what does that say that minority males aren't pushing themselves or are happy to be 'good'? it's simply down to a changing societies views. Look back 10/20/30 years and look at the number of women working never mind the level of postion they are working. Men have been able to "push" at their careers/talents for longer then women or most minorities..give it another few decades and it will all balance out...hopefully.

baby and crumble

Maybe. I still say that drive to be better than everyone else, to prove something, exists less in women than in men. i'm not saying everyone has equal opportunity to become better than everyone else, far from it. I just think that maybe, men are more likely to want to do that, to the exclusion of everything else.

Raze_them_all

LittleBook wrote: »

Only if you believe that aggressively pursuing the goal of being the best is the only way to have a good life. I think people, including men, are getting tired of this constant struggle to live up to other people's expectations and the never-ending competition that pervades society. You don't have to be "the best" to contribute to society and live a happy and productive life.

Maybe your original question has less to do with actually having talent than it has to do with the compulsion to prove it. Just a thought.

How can you have talent if you have not measured yourself against others.

As a males point of view. I like to win, at everything, winning to me is the best feeling in the world. I cannot train on my own, I have no drive, nobody to measure myself against. This is the same for me in all area's of life. I think it could be part of the alpha dog personality. Men will always want to be the best at whatever they do, no guy I know is happy to take the back seat on something, they prefer to be the one leading the way.

Wibbs

There is an element to that RTA, but it varies quite a bit in men and women. In your social group it may be a case of birds of a feather flock together. You mention training. Sporty types tend to be more obviously competitive anyway. Nature of the beast.

As well as the "alpha dog" men, I know quite a few men the polar opposite of that. Very passive type fellas. On the surface anyway. Same for women. Plus it depends on how one defines passivity. EG The guy who can haul 250k while running up a mountain, may be the same guy who is very passive in social settings.

In the expression of talents and the ability to get to the very top, social and emotional intelligence is far more useful than obvious competition. Women tend to be better at that, even if it looks "passive" from the outside. The greatest leaders in history had that talent in spades. They learn to use the competitive drives in others for their own gain. You see this in animals too. Dogs a good example. When you pick out a puppy, you hear that its best to pick out the one that approaches you. That's not the alpha. that's the enforcer in the pack. The alpha is the one sitting at the back watching everything.

Another aspect is the notion of direct competition. You mention you find it less satisfying to train on your own. You prefer the drive that others give you. Totally understandable too, but many of the top athletes, both men and women, do not need this. They can quite easily train on their own for hours at a time. Indeed I'd nearly say it was a mark of the best. Even in team sports. George Best would train for day after day on his own with a tennis ball to perfect his skills. Sean Kelly honed his skills on the bike by taking huge training runs on his own. Not just sports either. Jimi Hendrix would practice on his own almost constantly. They compete against themselves first.

IMHO the whole alpha thing is a red herring and an over simplification. Both men and women can have the real deal, so that aspect of success I think is way overblown.

LittleBook

Just a small addition to what Wibbs has said ...

Raze_them_all wrote: »

How can you have talent if you have not measured yourself against others.

Talents are natural abilities. What people do with their talents, how they develop them, is another matter but they don't exist solely in the context of competition.

"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best."
- Henry Van Dyke

jugger0

Obviously in physical contests men will always win, for everything else its just because men are more competitive in general, of course different mentalitys between the 2 sexes may influence one over the other.

JayEnnis

LittleBook wrote: »

Only if you believe that aggressively pursuing the goal of being the best is the only way to have a good life. I think people, including men, are getting tired of this constant struggle to live up to other people's expectations and the never-ending competition that pervades society. You don't have to be "the best" to contribute to society and live a happy and productive life.

Maybe your original question has less to do with actually having talent than it has to do with the compulsion to prove it. Just a thought.

But it sure helps. We would be years behind if people didn't push themselves to be the best they can be. Its needed for the progression of society.

Scarinae

We're also told from a very early age what men are good at and what women are good at. I was excellent at Maths when I was in school, and got into Maths competitions etc. The amount of times people would tell me that Maths was a boys' subject was incredible - not in a "You must stop doing Maths because you are a girl" kind of way, more in a "I am surprised that you are doing so well despite being a girl" sort of way :rolleyes: The same thing happened when I took up Applied Maths in fifth year.

Another area that's seen as quite female-dominated is primary school teaching. Yet male primary teachers are much more likely to become the school principal. It's strange

LittleBook

JayEnnis wrote: »

But it sure helps. We would be years behind if people didn't push themselves to be the best they can be. Its needed for the progression of society.

There's a difference between being the best you can be and being the best in society's eyes. People were innovating and creating long before prizes were being handed out for it and there are many, MANY people we've never even heard of who have had a hand in progessing society.

Wibbs

LittleBook wrote: »

there are many, MANY people we've never even heard of who have had a hand in progessing society.

+1 In a big way. People forget that before history and names were written down, there were Leonardos and Einsteins long before. Whoever built Newgrange was a genius. Whoever painted the caves of Lascaux was a genius. The first sundial, the first stone building, the domestication of crops and animals, the measurements of the stars through the sky and time on the back of it, the plough, the bridle, stone carving, writing, mathematics, the handaxe, the bow and arrow, etc The list is very long.

ztoical

Fishie wrote: »

Another area that's seen as quite female-dominated is primary school teaching. Yet male primary teachers are much more likely to become the school principal. It's strange

That is sadly less to do with who is best for the job and more to do with parents not being comfortable with male teachers. A male primary school teacher will get alot of 'looks' that a female one wouldn't. It makes it more likely for them to look to move towards a management role like principal then stay in a teaching role. You find the same thing with secretaries. People just don't trust male secretaries esp in places like doctors offices were there is private information on them stored.

Nolanger

RainbowRed wrote: »

Is there anything, you think, in particular that may be encouraging male dominance in these fields of 'talent'?

Men break the rules, women follow.

vicecreamsundae

i really don't believe there are any things that men are inherently better at, and things women are inherently better at. i think they are encouraged to do different things, and that girls aren't taught to be as competitive as boys. i also think the huge slump in self esteem that girls experience during puberty has a huge negative effect on how they develop talents. boys don't experience this same dramatic slump in esteem when they hit puberty.

i also think that there are many more girls achieving things that are simply not reported. women's sports for example get insanely little coverage compared to men's, and i think this happens all across the board. men's news is the default news and women's news is relegated to the women's section.

things are changing, and i hope they continue to change quickly

Raze_them_all

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

women's sports for example get insanely little coverage compared to men's, and i think this happens all across the board. men's news is the default news and women's news is relegated to the women's section.

things are changing, and i hope they continue to change quickly

I think it's because when it comes to sports people like to hear the best and usually the best in any given sport is a man.

Though to highlight your point did you know that a woman from dublin recently competed in America's 3rd biggest MMA company and she was at one stage ranked number 4 in the world?

Napper Hawkins

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

i also think the huge slump in self esteem that girls experience during puberty has a huge negative effect on how they develop talents. boys don't experience this same dramatic slump in esteem when they hit puberty.

Yes they do.

Herbal Deity

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Yes they do.

Agreed.

Oh holy mother of God yes they do. I would almost go as far as saying that boys suffer from this moreso than girls, although not being a girl, I can't comment fully.

biko

I think in order to find talents you first need to find places where there is gender balance and then look at talent.

Another way is to measure in schools before socialisation of girls and boys have really taken hold.
For instance: Girls have outperformed boys in the Leaving Certificate exams once again this year. In the three core subjects, English, Irish and Maths, young women are ahead, in some cases significantly.
Does this mean girls are generally more talented in Maths?

Nolanger

Nope, they just work harder, receive grinds, and have less distractions.

LegacyUser

The world of work is far removed from exams. They have become more and more regurgitating what is in the text books for exams. Girls are best at that whereas boys get bored.Remember the hardwiring in our DNA. Men hunted,concentrated for short periods for the "kill" and then moved on to do the same some time later. Women gathered the fruit etc in groups and may spend hours doing it.

Channel 4 did an excellant programme a few years ago where they got a class of boys and girls to do a mock exams 1) based on text book answers and 2) based on the need for spacial thinking etc. On 1) the girls did much better and in 2) the results were almost directly reversed.

Until we change the exam system we will always have a imbalance and wonder why it doesnt replicate in the real world.

goose2005

biko wrote: »

I think in order to find talents you first need to find places where there is gender balance and then look at talent.

Another way is to measure in schools before socialisation of girls and boys have really taken hold.
For instance: Girls have outperformed boys in the Leaving Certificate exams once again this year. In the three core subjects, English, Irish and Maths, young women are ahead, in some cases significantly.
Does this mean girls are generally more talented in Maths?

the maths results are always presenting in an idiotic way - 78% OF GIRLS GOT A, B OR C COMPARED TO 77% OF BOYS ... 6,000 boys took higher level compared to 3,000 girls

Nolanger

RainbowRed wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you could take any sort of talent, and the field would be dominated by male experts.

Rachel Allen did a show last week where she visited the homes of the top British chefs - all men!

metrovelvet

RainbowRed wrote: »

Hey all!

This is a bit of an age old question, but I find that most things that require what many people consider 'talent' are incredibly male dominated. I'm pretty sure you could take any sort of talent, and the field would be dominated by male experts. This is quite funny considering the level of genuinely talented women out there... right? Surely (considering we compose around half of any given population) the percentage should be more equitable!

Is there anything, you think, in particular that may be encouraging male dominance in these fields of 'talent'? Or are there any reasons for the lack of female visibility in them? Sure there are exceptions.. but in general.

I think we are wired differently. I would agree with the hypothesis that the reason there is no female Mozart is the same reason there is no female Jack the Ripper.

onlyrocknroll

I read recently that in the Chess world rankings, women formed a small minority, but that this minority was spread throughout the rankings in a way that would be statistically normal.

(Sorry don't have the book to hand so can't give more accurate figures)

This implies that in chess, women aren't less talented than men, just that far less of them participate.

I assume that this is the case for many other talents.

Of course even if this is true it doesn't really answer the question it just pushes it back to 'why do less women participate in (whatever area of talent) than men?'

bluecatmorgana

RainbowRed wrote: »

Hey all!

This is a bit of an age old question, but I find that most things that require what many people consider 'talent' are incredibly male dominated. I'm pretty sure you could take any sort of talent, and the field would be dominated by male experts. This is quite funny considering the level of genuinely talented women out there... right? Surely (considering we compose around half of any given population) the percentage should be more equitable!

Is there anything, you think, in particular that may be encouraging male dominance in these fields of 'talent'? Or are there any reasons for the lack of female visibility in them? Sure there are exceptions.. but in general.

yeah theyre called babies

onlyrocknroll

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think we are wired differently. I would agree with the hypothesis that the reason there is no female Mozart is the same reason there is no female Jack the Ripper.

I couldn't disagree more, there have been many women of artistic genius and there have female serial killers.

Nulty

Read recently that girls are getting more smart in the Junior Cert than boys.

Duh!

metrovelvet

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more, there have been many women of artistic genius and there have female serial killers.

Like who?

onlyrocknroll

metrovelvet wrote: »

Like who?

Em. Jane Austin and Rosemery West

Raze_them_all

metrovelvet wrote: »

Like who?

While i'm not artistic, Female serial killers... Countess Erzebet Bathory, If you seen hostel 2 whrere the woman cut yer one's throat and bathed in her blood, that was a refrence to her,

Rosemary west is the brittish one that killed 10 or 12 people with her husband.

Aileen Wuornus is the woman monster is based on.

Thats just off the top of my head

metrovelvet

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

Em. Jane Austin and Rosemery West

Literature is different because its relational and psychological. And I would also argue that Jane Austen deserves to be called a genius. She's nowhere near the genius of Mozart for example.

Female serial killers are an abberation. They are very rare.

onlyrocknroll

metrovelvet wrote: »

Literature is different because its relational and psychological. And I would also argue that Jane Austen deserves to be called a genius. She's nowhere near the genius of Mozart for example.

Female serial killers are an abberation. They are very rare.

Female serial killers are rare (aberration might be a strong word) but they do exist.

Literature is the art form that women have made the biggest impact in (I think at least), so by discounting it you're stacking the deck slightly. Also I think that discounting it because its 'relational and psychological' is arbitrary. Both those words can be used about music.

Female composers of classical music might be rare, but there are brilliant female names in Jazz like Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday. We just tend to not use the word genius in Jazz the same way we use it in classical.

In the art world today there are many women who are significant. I obviously don't know the demographics but women seem better represented in the arts then they do in other areas of life. Sure none of them are geniuses but the same can be said about today's male artists.

Genius is a tricky concept as its indefinable. You could refute any name I bring up. Jane Austen command of prose style was truly phenomenal and arguable she looms as large over the novel as Mozart looms over classical music.

onlyrocknroll

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more, there have been many women of artistic genius and there have female serial killers.

Indeed, female composers didn't get much fame when their jobs were to "go home and be women".
Everyone knows robert schumann but not much is made of clara schumann that I've come across

Clara Schumann (née Clara Josephine Wieck; 13 September 1819 – 20 May 1896) was a German musician and composer, considered one of the most distinguished pianists of the Romantic era.

OR mozart's sister

When she was seven years old, her father Leopold Mozart started teaching her to play the harpsichord. Leopold took her and Wolfgang on tours of many cities, such as Vienna and Paris, to showcase their talents. In the early days she sometimes received top billing and she was noted as an excellent harpsichord player and fortepianist.
However, given the views of her parents, prevalent in her society at the time, it became impossible as she grew older for Marianne to continue her career any further. As the New Grove puts it, "from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age."

It's unfair to compare male talent to female talent in this respect for the very reasons above.

onlyrocknroll wrote:

This implies that in chess, women aren't less talented than men, just that far less of them participate.

It was funny to go to chess competitions and see how aggressively boys played. I heard that in general girls were taught to play more defensively than boys. Indeed my own style was fairly defensive.
Nonetheless it was nice in some of the novice division competitions where myself and the only other girl beat the one guy who beat all the other guys
Or the time I was the only female in an entire competition! I wish I could say I won it
I did find it very condescending when one of the overseers (male) at another one came to speak to me about not recording moves (this was after I had given up and was playing a last one for fun) - "do you not know how to write them?" :rolleyes: