Female vs Male Talents

Nolanger

One of the best documentary filmmakers was a woman but no-one mentions her anymore because she was a Nazi!

Wibbs

Leni Riefenstahl? Well "triumph of the will" was her high point and yes a damn good propaganda/documentary with a lot of novel ideas thrown in, but the reason nobody mentions her is that she was a muppet who went where the wind blew, while selfishly ignoring the obvious and hang the morality. Right so we're both sailing close to breaking Godwins law on this one.

Nolanger

Ryan Turbridy interrogating those IT geeks on the Late Late over no female inventers of Twitter, Bebo, etc. Like it's all their fault?

Logical Fallacy

bluewolf wrote: »

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:

In fairness he may have been condescending because you were a kid, most adults are pretty condescending towards young folk.

Wibbs

I does beg interesting questions though. I know and have known seriously inventive and capable women. The capable part is more important than the inventive part IMHO. I can think of any number of solutions for problems from the top of my head at an given time, but actually having the nous to make any of those solutions a reality? Nope. I tend to fail at that hurdle. I have wondered why those women tend not to keep at it. I also know men like that, but in general even the one trick pony guys keep at it more. Whatever the reason, I'd love to know what it is, because IMHO on a purely practical level we're losing a lot of possible solutions to life's problems out of it.

I reckon onlyrocknroll* nailed it earlier

onlyrocknroll wrote:

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.

Though

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?'

does need some exploring. Now it's just my humble, but I think it's because men tend to be more usefully forthright and singleminded and more importantly, when they're being so are much more likely to be listened to, by both men and women.


*and I like it, like it, yes I do...

Wibbs

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

In fairness he may have been condescending because you were a kid, most adults are pretty condescending towards young folk.

I would agree 100%, but I have seen another level being attached to Female "kid".

Pherekydes

Wibbs wrote: »

I reckon onlyrocknroll* nailed it earlier

:mad:
I nailed it 19 days earlier:

Pherekydes wrote: »

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.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

I does beg interesting questions though. I know and have known seriously inventive and capable women. The capable part is more important than the inventive part IMHO. I can think of any number of solutions for problems from the top of my head at an given time, but actually having the nous to make any of those solutions a reality? Nope. I tend to fail at that hurdle. I have wondered why those women tend not to keep at it. I also know men like that, but in general even the one trick pony guys keep at it more. Whatever the reason, I'd love to know what it is, because IMHO on a purely practical level we're losing a lot of possible solutions to life's problems out of it.

I reckon onlyrocknroll* nailed it earlier

Though does need some exploring. Now it's just my humble, but I think it's because men tend to be more usefully forthright and singleminded and more importantly, when they're being so are much more likely to be listened to, by both men and women.


*and I like it, like it, yes I do...

By george I think you've got it.

I do think that men can have that little bit extra of single bloody mindedness that is necessary to be an inventor, a Mozart, an Einstein, etc or a complete off the wall madman wanted in 30 states. [Exceptions considered].

And also getting heard is a biggie.

I also wonder about bossiness too though. Take Hollywood for example. Why are there so few female directors and producers and so many actresses? Is that they don't like being in charge or that they are not trusted to be in charge?

Nevyn

"Men don't like women who seem smarter then they are and they certainly wont' marry one,
so maybe learn to hide your ligth under a bushel a bit if you want to marry and have a family."

Advice given to me by my grandmother. On many things she was spot on and a femist and a activist in her own way but she was also a realist. There are men out there who don't have a problem with smart capable women and who also don't look for any flaw or failing to bring them 'down to earth' it's just hard to find one.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

By george I think you've got it.

I do think that men can have that little bit extra of single bloody mindedness that is necessary to be an inventor, a Mozart, an Einstein, etc or a complete off the wall madman wanted in 30 states. [Exceptions considered].

I don't think that is the complete picture, I think there are women who are like that as well but they are not given the time to peruse it. They have 'women's' work to do, even at a young age girls were made to help give a hand minding siblings and doing house work and prep which was training for when they had a family of their own were as boys and men were given time to pursue such things and then we have the way that women are forgotten about and not celebrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Murray_Hopper

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (December 9, 1906 – January 1, 1992) was an American computer scientist and United States Naval officer. A pioneer in the field, she was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer, and she developed the first compiler for a computer programming language.[1][2][3][4][5] She conceptualized the idea of machine-independent programming languages, which led to the development of COBOL, one of the first modern programming languages. She is also credited with popularizing the term "debugging" for fixing computer glitches (motivated by an actual moth removed from the computer). Because of the breadth of her accomplishments and her naval rank, she is sometimes referred to as "Amazing Grace". The U.S. Navy destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70) was named for her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958) was a British biophysicist, physicist, chemist, biologist and X-ray crystallographer who made critical contributions to the understanding of the fine molecular structures of DNA, RNA, viruses, coal and graphite.

Franklin is still best known for her work on the X-ray diffraction images of DNA. Her data, according to Francis Crick, were "the data we actually used"[1] to formulate Crick and Watson's 1953 hypothesis regarding the structure of DNA.[2] Furthermore, unpublished drafts of her papers (written as she was arranging to leave the unsupportive research situation at King's College London) show that she had indeed determined the overall B-form of the DNA helix. However, her work was published third, in the series of three DNA Nature articles, led by the paper of Watson and Crick which only vaguely acknowledged her evidence in support of their hypothesis.[3] The possibility that Franklin played a major role was not revealed until Watson wrote his personal account, The Double Helix,[4] in 1968 which subsequently inspired several people to investigate DNA history and Franklin's contribution. The first, Robert Olby's "The Path to the Double Helix", supplied information about original source materials for those that followed.[5] After finishing her portion of the DNA work, Franklin led pioneering work on the tobacco mosaic and polio viruses.

She died at the age of 37 from complications arising from ovarian cancer.

Nobel Prize

The rules of the Nobel Prize forbid posthumous nominations[108] and because Rosalind Franklin had died in 1958 she was not eligible for nomination to the Nobel Prize subsequently awarded to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins in 1962.[116] The award was for their body of work on nucleic acids and not exclusively for the discovery of the structure of DNA.[117]

These women are out there always have been but they are bad examples of the ideal of womanhood which we are meant to conform to and so we don't hear about them.

Honest to god I swear some day I am going to write a book for girls (which boys should read too) about 100 women you should know about.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't think that is the complete picture, I think there are women who are like that as well but they are not given the time to peruse it. They have 'women's' work to do, even at a young age girls were made to help give a hand minding siblings and doing house work and prep which was training for when they had a family of their own were as boys and men were given time to pursue such things and then we have the way that women are forgotten about and not celebrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Murray_Hopper



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin



These women are out there always have been but they are bad examples of the ideal of womanhood which we are meant to conform to and so we don't hear about them.

Honest to god I swear some day I am going to write a book for girls (which boys should read too) about 100 women you should know about.

I really hope you write that book. It needs to be written because women get written out of the main history. [Ideally main history should be revised instead of having to write these books which further particularise women].

When I was in high school, we did not read ONE book by a woman writer. Not one and there are plenty, not even a Jane Austen or a Bronte.

I asked my teacher about this and he said 'The Scarlet Letter" is a woman's book. We are reading that. :rolleyes:

LittleBook

Thaedydal wrote: »

Honest to god I swear some day I am going to write a book for girls (which boys should read too) about 100 women you should know about.

Not if I get there first!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Men have to excel at something to attract a mate, the same pressure isn't there for women so you get the extremes

If for some hypothetical reason numbers of men reduced to 10% of the population you'd probably end up with the extremely talented scientists/entertainers/intellectuals/senior management being almost exclusively female.

Men aren't inherently ''better'' at things - they're just driven to attract women in a highly competitive world

Nolanger

Also, a lot of things were invented by men and suit their minds better e.g. internet technology

tigerblob

I believe that women tend to be Jacks of all trades while men tend to concentrate on one, as a general rule. While a woman can do a whole range of things well, a man is more likely to have one passion which he concentrates on. Obviously this isn't true for everyone but mostly, this could explain why men are in talent competitions more or what have you. The man could decide that he adores guitar and play it for eight hours a day while the woman plays some guitar, but also devotes her time to cooking, painting, writing, singing... you get the idea.

Wibbs

Nolanger wrote: »

Also, a lot of things were invented by men and suit their minds better e.g. internet technology

Maybe but it could also be argued that women are better at social networking and understanding such networks, so on the level above the mechanics of the backbone of web tech, they might be better at building the systems.

TBH I think while there may be subtle diffs, individual diffs are more important.

Nolanger

Wibbs wrote: »

it could also be argued that women are better at social networking and understanding such networks

Alway wondered if women are better at getting on with people, networking and communicating why are there no great female film directors?

Improbable

Nolanger wrote: »

Alway wondered if women are better at getting on with people, networking and communicating why are there no great female film directors?

Mary Harron - American Psycho

Valerie Feris - Little Miss Sunshine

metrovelvet

Nolanger wrote: »

Alway wondered if women are better at getting on with people, networking and communicating why are there no great female film directors?

Visual media? Dont like being bossy? Casting couch reserved for actresses? ALso you dont need to get on with people, you need to get people to do what you want and that sometimes means being the bad guy.

Wibbs

Plus a lot of women work in the media behind the camera. Particularly in TV.

SugarHigh

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe but it could also be argued that women are better at social networking and understanding such networks, so on the level above the mechanics of the backbone of web tech, they might be better at building the systems.

TBH I think while there may be subtle diffs, individual diffs are more important.

Lmao are you seriously suggesting that since you perceive women to be better at social interactions they would be better able to build any sort of computer system just because it's used for social reasons?

Thats like expecting Usain Bolt to be good at designing racings cars because he can run fast.:D

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

Lmao are you seriously suggesting that since you perceive women to be better at social interactions they would be better able to build any sort of computer system just because it's used for social reasons?

Thats like expecting Usain Bolt to be good at designing racings cars because he can run fast.:D

Its also the same reason women are expected to send the christmas and birthday cards.:rolleyes:

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its also the same reason women are expected to send the christmas and birthday cards.:rolleyes:

Yea it was used by dad a lot as well. Pretending not to know how to use the washing machine because my mother was "just better at that kind of stuff" as if there was much to know or be good at.:D

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

Lmao are you seriously suggesting that since you perceive women to be better at social interactions they would be better able to build any sort of computer system just because it's used for social reasons?

You're missing my point by a country mile. Like I said above the mechanics of it. Programmers(and I've known a few quite a number both male and female. Yep they exist) tend to be very linear thinkers. Good plan too considering the nature of the beast. Few enough are particularly good at the user experience end. They think engineering first and usage often comes down the line. They tend to thrive more on linear complexity, often for its own sake. Vague example. Linux fans. They love that it requires more effort, more geekiness to actually do stuff. They're more in love with the machinery of computing than the actual use of it as a tool outside of that. This often leads to very inelegant solutions to the user experience. Real wood for the trees thinking. Each tree is identified and logged(no pun) and very ordered but the overall forest is often left out of the mix(simply because they don't see it or it's value). What I was suggesting is that if someone better at understanding how people actually interact in that example, rather than approaching it from how the engineering should work and railroading the user end to that, that might well be an advantage to anyone building such a system. If that kinda non linear thinking hadnt been employed in the past we'd likely be still typing C prompts.

SugarHigh

Wibbs your post still has nothing to do with male bs female. You've basically just decided that men are better at logic and women are better at design, back it up please because it's offensive to both genders.

Can you even show me that there is a higher percentage of female GUI designers than femal programmers?

Your thought process seems to be similar to the one of scientists aren't creative and creative people aren't scientific. It's something that sounds kind of plausible so gets accepted as fact with nothing to back it up.

Improbable

SugarHigh wrote: »

Wibbs your post still has nothing to do with male bs female. You've basically just decided that men are better at logic and women are better at design, back it up please because it's offensive to both genders.

I'm a guy. I don't find it offensive.

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

Wibbs your post still has nothing to do with male bs female. You've basically just decided that men are better at logic and women are better at design, back it up please because it's offensive to both genders.

Nope I didn't. If you're looking to have your hackles raised you're doing it to yourself.

Can you even show me that there is a higher percentage of female GUI designers than femal programmers?

Ok here's one susan Kare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Kare. A graphic artist not a programmer who helped design the first mac GUI. She's an example of someone coming in with a different approach. Indeed the original Mac team had all sorts of non coder types on it. They took a different non "geeky" approach.

Your thought process seems to be similar to the one of scientists aren't creative and creative people aren't scientific. It's something that sounds kind of plausible so gets accepted as fact with nothing to back it up.

Well it depends entirely on what you define as creative for a start. Great science requires creativity in spades as far as one off discoveries go, everyday science not so much. It requires more methodical thinking. Artistically creative people while requiring some methodical thinking to be successful are more freewheeling by the very nature of the process. You can be a middling scientist if you don't have a creative bone in your body, but you'll never be a great one. You can be a middling artist if you're sloppy, but not a great one. A bit of both helps both, but there's definitely a bias between the two disciplines.

Women used to be much higher in number in the computer field but this has dropped over the last 10 years(except in India of all places). What has changed? Hardly the systems themselves, so it's likely something else. The geeky image may have something to do with it.

SugarHigh

Improbable wrote: »

I'm a guy. I don't find it offensive.

That's nice, some women don't find being treated as second class citizens as offensive.

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's nice, some women don't find being treated as second class citizens as offensive.

IMHO Now you're either extracting the urine for effect or you're looking to be "offended".

SugarHigh

Posting one woman who works as a GUI designer has me convinced. Women are clearly better at designing gui's.

SugarHigh

Wibbs wrote: »

IMHO Now you're either extracting the urine for effect or you're looking to be "offended".

If I cme on here and said men are better at maths or women were better cleaning I would have been ripped apart.

You still haven't backed up how men are more logical it women are better at design.

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

If I cme on here and said men are better at maths or women were better cleaning I would have been ripped apart.

Rightfully as you're not comparing like with like and I would suspect you were either silly or trolling.

You still haven't backed up how men are more logical it women are better at design.

I actually didn't say any such thing. Please point out where I did.

Mise wrote:

Maybe but it could also be argued that women are better at social networking and understanding such networks, so on the level above the mechanics of the backbone of web tech, they might be better at building the systems.

TBH I think while there may be subtle diffs, individual diffs are more important.

A passage you yourself quoted so I presume you read it.

Programmers(and I've known a few quite a number both male and female. Yep they exist)

What I was suggesting is that if someone better at understanding how people actually interact in that example

Emphasis in bold for understanding. I don't see anything about what you're seeing.

Maybe try actually reading others posts before you hit "submit reply". At this stage I still reckon you're either missing my point by a country mile or deliberately doing so.

Maple

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's nice, some women don't find being treated as second class citizens as offensive.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Posting one woman who works as a GUI designer has me convinced. Women are clearly better at designing gui's.

SugarHigh, i'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse and/or just trolling.

Either way, enough.

Maple.

goose2005

bluewolf wrote: »

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


OR mozart's sister


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

True - you may as well compare working-class scientists/musicians/artists to middle-class scientists/musicians/artists and conclude that the latter are naturally superior.

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:

But in proper chess tournaments, you have to record moves (unless you have less than 5 mins on the clock)

Nolanger wrote: »

One of the best documentary filmmakers was a woman but no-one mentions her anymore because she was a Nazi!

Actually her achievements in cinematography are often mentioned (e.g. the medal scene in"Star Wars" was copied from Triumph of the Will), with the inevitable apologies.

Nolanger wrote: »

Also, a lot of things were invented by men and suit their minds better e.g. internet technology

I don't really understand, are you suggesting that a female-designed Internet would be easier for women to program??