Female vs Male Talents

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.

coffee_cake

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:

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.