I'm too lazy to pull out references and stuff to what I am about to say, because this isn't really a thing to be peer-reviewed and published, so you can trust me when I say I have big researches backing my following rant up, or not read on:
What OP is talking about is close to the "equality paradox" - wherein when one works to give both genders the equal ability to attend any job or education they want, but when you do that, it seems to not really help on how many girls choose the "man dominated jobs" and vice versa.
Let's look at why this might be:
Harrasment?
Are girls in man jobs harrased? The general consensus seems to be that this is not really the case. A guy can be a nurse and not be mocked for it. A girl can be a construction worker and not have all guys wistle at her at work
Social influence?
Have social factors from since we were small influenced us in such a way that girls think they should chose social studies and work rather than engineering and/or system engineering etc related work? Are women socially influenced to take care of people and their kids rather than the male? In a perfect society, would a man have equal drive to be a nurse as a woman? Should there be 50% construction workers?
Genes?
Are genes what makes women more interested in social aspects of life whereas men are more interested in systems and mechanics?
The answer is yes. No, actually, it's genes.
"But, how can you make such an outrageous statement without backing it up with references?"
I'm lazy, ok? If anyone really needs it, I can dig out names to make it easier to find.
There was one study in Norway, studying children whose gender was hard to determine, wherein they'd put kids under a year old to play with toys set up in a spesific patters, where the time they played with each toy was noted. This found girls playing with 'social' toys (dolls, etc) for a longer period of time and boys playing with mechanical toys (cars and car-parks and all standard boy-toys - no pun inte.. ok, the pun's there) for a longer period of time. This effect could be seen on kids older than 8 months.
"Aha!" you say, "this obviously means that they can already have been influenced by society," but I will disprove this with the following study
Because, another study conducted in the UK had studied infants only a day after birth, presenting them with a picture of something mechanical/system-oriented and a picture of a face. Girls were found to look at the face more, and boys being more interested in the mechanical picture. There was also found a correlation between interest in mechanical systems and the likes with testosterone levels in the body.
If there's perfect equality between genders, girls are free to choose exactly what they want to do, right? This is what explains the 'equality paradox', because when we're free to do what we want, our genes are what'll dictate what we find fascinating and what we want to work with. Girls are genetically more inclined to enjoy social aspects of life, like nursing, nannying, typical women-dominated work-places - whereas guys are more interested in systems, mechanics and how things work and are put together and want to buid things. This is why engineering professions mostly are men dominated.
Another interesting aside is that in 'less free' countries, there's smaller difference in persentage of women and men in various work-places. This seems very likely to be due to the fact that you're more concerned with just getting a job, rather than 'pursuit the deepest of your dreams', like we might be more free to do here in the west.
Is there anything wrong with this genetic difference? Should we try to lessen the gaps? Should there be a difference in girl and boy's toys? Maybe if it turns out that it's the genes that makes boys inclined to play with toys that you'd expect a boy-toddler to play with, then this isn't really a bad thing. For we shouldn't fight our instincts. The equality paradox shows that we've actually come a long way with equality between genders, since both genders feel free to do what they feel an urge to do. Women aren't forced to be construction workers by persentage, if they want to be a nurse, they become a nurse.
I'd say mathmatics, physics and such are more system-oriented and mechanical topics, seemingly explaining why there are more guys in these topics at universities and colleges, as opposed to social-anthropology and the likes, which you may consider to be a more socially oriented thing to study.
If the whole system of scholaring is more system-oriented itself is another, also interesting topic. Despite girls doing better in mandetory school, seemingly fewer of them decide to get an academic education, and more of them veer off to do things like study to be a nure or study dancing. I'd think the whole academic education itself is to an extent more set up, genetically "peeking interest" speaking, to attract boys. Maybe this should be looked at.
Oh, well.
What OP is talking about is close to the "equality paradox" - wherein when one works to give both genders the equal ability to attend any job or education they want, but when you do that, it seems to not really help on how many girls choose the "man dominated jobs" and vice versa.
Let's look at why this might be:
Harrasment?
Are girls in man jobs harrased? The general consensus seems to be that this is not really the case. A guy can be a nurse and not be mocked for it. A girl can be a construction worker and not have all guys wistle at her at work
Social influence?
Have social factors from since we were small influenced us in such a way that girls think they should chose social studies and work rather than engineering and/or system engineering etc related work? Are women socially influenced to take care of people and their kids rather than the male? In a perfect society, would a man have equal drive to be a nurse as a woman? Should there be 50% construction workers?
Genes?
Are genes what makes women more interested in social aspects of life whereas men are more interested in systems and mechanics?
The answer is yes. No, actually, it's genes.
"But, how can you make such an outrageous statement without backing it up with references?"
I'm lazy, ok? If anyone really needs it, I can dig out names to make it easier to find.
There was one study in Norway, studying children whose gender was hard to determine, wherein they'd put kids under a year old to play with toys set up in a spesific patters, where the time they played with each toy was noted. This found girls playing with 'social' toys (dolls, etc) for a longer period of time and boys playing with mechanical toys (cars and car-parks and all standard boy-toys - no pun inte.. ok, the pun's there) for a longer period of time. This effect could be seen on kids older than 8 months.
"Aha!" you say, "this obviously means that they can already have been influenced by society," but I will disprove this with the following study
Because, another study conducted in the UK had studied infants only a day after birth, presenting them with a picture of something mechanical/system-oriented and a picture of a face. Girls were found to look at the face more, and boys being more interested in the mechanical picture. There was also found a correlation between interest in mechanical systems and the likes with testosterone levels in the body.
If there's perfect equality between genders, girls are free to choose exactly what they want to do, right? This is what explains the 'equality paradox', because when we're free to do what we want, our genes are what'll dictate what we find fascinating and what we want to work with. Girls are genetically more inclined to enjoy social aspects of life, like nursing, nannying, typical women-dominated work-places - whereas guys are more interested in systems, mechanics and how things work and are put together and want to buid things. This is why engineering professions mostly are men dominated.
Another interesting aside is that in 'less free' countries, there's smaller difference in persentage of women and men in various work-places. This seems very likely to be due to the fact that you're more concerned with just getting a job, rather than 'pursuit the deepest of your dreams', like we might be more free to do here in the west.
Is there anything wrong with this genetic difference? Should we try to lessen the gaps? Should there be a difference in girl and boy's toys? Maybe if it turns out that it's the genes that makes boys inclined to play with toys that you'd expect a boy-toddler to play with, then this isn't really a bad thing. For we shouldn't fight our instincts. The equality paradox shows that we've actually come a long way with equality between genders, since both genders feel free to do what they feel an urge to do. Women aren't forced to be construction workers by persentage, if they want to be a nurse, they become a nurse.
I'd say mathmatics, physics and such are more system-oriented and mechanical topics, seemingly explaining why there are more guys in these topics at universities and colleges, as opposed to social-anthropology and the likes, which you may consider to be a more socially oriented thing to study.
If the whole system of scholaring is more system-oriented itself is another, also interesting topic. Despite girls doing better in mandetory school, seemingly fewer of them decide to get an academic education, and more of them veer off to do things like study to be a nure or study dancing. I'd think the whole academic education itself is to an extent more set up, genetically "peeking interest" speaking, to attract boys. Maybe this should be looked at.
Oh, well.
