Isn't that in fact, beside the point, the take away from your statement is that women who choose to have children and who choose to take care of them for the first 6 months or a year are punished the rest of their lives for the fact that they chose to procreate. Yet the same misogynists who would punish women for taking the time to procreate are the same people who would deny that woman the means to terminate that pregnancy if she chose and are generally the same people who preach that woman's highest calling is procreation. Your statement obviates all these conflicting and contradictory social factors.
American men taking back their masculinity?
- Thread starter wordcreatorushtwf
- Start date
Isn't that in fact, beside the point, the take away from your statement is that women who choose to have children and who choose to take care of them for the first 6 months or a year are punished the rest of their lives for the fact that they chose to procreate. Yet the same misogynists who would punish women for taking the time to procreate are the same people who would deny that woman the means to terminate that pregnancy if she chose and are generally the same people who preach that woman's highest calling is procreation. Your statement obviates all these conflicting and contradictory social factors.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Well sorry if you feel offended but the truth is often like that, have a nice day.
Speak for yourself! I don't have to do anything I don't want to do! And I have found that people like yourself, I think you refer to them here as "willfully ignorant," refuse to accept some things no matter how many times those things are said ow who says them!
For some reason this comment is not allowing me to thank you for it!
The fact is that we do a horrible job in our schools preparing people for math and science! I don't think it has much to do with innate cognitive ability at all!
The fact is that you implied that there were no women chemists and there are plenty! And Mott named some of the more famous! And so far you have completely ignored just how misogynistic that implication was! But as far as I can tell from your posts here on nearly every topic you seem completely unwilling to see yourself as others see you!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh absolutely it does. I would argue that many who do have the innate cognitive ability are either steered in other directions or do not have the proper preparation, so what you're saying is true to a degree, but regardless innate abilities do come into play. Just as not everyone has the innate ability to be a star athlete not every one has the innate ability to master a science discipline.
christiefan915
Catalyst
There was a piece on Morning Edition yesterday about the physical sciences.
"Are American kidsbeing adequately prepared in the sciences to compete in a highly competitive, global high-tech workforce? A majority of American parents say no, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health.
Nearly one-quarter of all parents said their child's school today doesn't put enough emphasis on science curricula. And 30 percent of parents with children in kindergarten up through fifth grade say there's too little emphasis on science. "
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/251675532/to-make-science-real-kids-want-more-fun-and-fewer-facts
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I didn't say there are no women chemists, I said that there were no famous ones at least as far as I know. My challenges to Desh was to name some. I was actually thinking about organic chemistry as I was talking to her about Carl Desgrassi and the contraceptive pill. That list Mott supplied didn't contain one organic chemist and indeed precious few chemists at all. Rosalind Franklin was a brilliant biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer but she only gained a second class degree in chemistry.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/gender/giese.htm
Women in Science: 5000 Years of Obstacles and Achievements
Women in Science: 5000 Years of Obstacles and Achievements
I'm not saying there are not people who for whatever reason, brain damage or whatever, simply cannot learn what I am saying is that the numbers of people capable of learning science and math is much, much greater than those who rely on arguments about "innate ability" are willing to admit. The story that you told about your own teacher was a good example, her attitude scared over half the students off even after the numbers had been dramatically reduced. Who knows what she did every year to the ranks, but how many of the other people would have stayed and completed the course if she would have been more welcoming, positive, and helpful instead of alienating, negative, and apocalyptic. And most science teachers and math teachers are like that. If you don't just grasp the subject by osmosis of some sort you're never going to get it because math and science are just too difficult for mere mortals. Koreans in America have many different kinds of private schools that are designed to aid them in their younger years to learn math and science and a far larger percentage of them wind up in the sciences and are successful. Is it because Koreans are innately smarter or more innately predisposed to math and science; no its not, but their parents are willing to spend huge amounts of money to give them the tutoring they need at very young ages to learn math and science and they are willing to pay for that background. My point being that within a much broader range than you seem willing to believe because of your own indoctrination people can learn and thrive if given intensive tutoring!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
True dat.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I listened to that report yesterday too. It's all part of the disaster that is known as "NCLB". The concept to teaching students to suceed in standardized tests is proving a disaster. Scoring well on standardized tests is not the "Be All" of education. Granted the US does lag behind in the STEM subjects on standardized tests but in the area of creative use of knowledge the US still leads the rest of the world by a substantial margin and this is largely credible to our educational system. Our education system is not the disaster that the naysayers, social conservatives and the mysanthropes would have you believe it is. There are many things it does well that should not be abandoned that are jeapordized by NCLB and social conservatives and their moronic notion of a conservative education.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
First of all don't put words in my mouth or tell me I mean something that I didn't state. It's not only presumptious of you, it's rude. Second, we by and large are in agreement. Our educational system can do better in preparing kids to do college level work in the STEM topics and I would agree that far more than 5% have the innate ability to master a STEM discipline...but just as clearly, many don't.
As for my College OChem Prof. You got that completely backwards. She did more to prepare me for Grad school than any prof I had as an undergrad.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Agreed. I think one of the huges mistakes they make about science is the same mistake that they make in this country in teaching foreign languages. They wait till you're in high school and try to have you memorize a large amount of data. The kids in high school I talk to today are super frustrated with their science classes, not because they don't like science and not because they haven't been adequately prepared but because their high school science classes have bee boiled down to memorizing data. That's not how science works, you can't learn science by memorizing data. You need to be able to know theory and be able to use theory to conceptualize and model natural phenomena and then be able to play with those models and concepts and experiment with them. You you're not taught that...you don't know crap about science. When I was in grad school and a research assistant there were a lot of Asian students who did great at memorizing data but were hopelessly lost in lab and applied science classes.