Girls From Progressive Societies Do Better At Math, Study Finds (sciencecodex.com) 280
An anonymous reader writes: (edited and condensed)Research by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has found that the 'maths gender gap', the relative under performance of girls at maths, is much wider in societies with poor rates of gender equality. Published on Monday in the American Economic Review, the research shows that the performance gap between girls and boys is far less pronounced in societies that hold progressive and egalitarian views about the role of women. The researchers analyzed the relationship between maths scores of 11,527 15-year-old living in nine different countries and the Gender Gap Index (GGI) in their country of ancestry. The GGI measures economic and political opportunities, education, and well-being for women. The researchers found that the more gender equality in the country of ancestry, the higher the maths scores of girls relative to boys living in the same country. The findings were significant and robust even when the researchers controlled for other individual factors that may affect youths' maths performance. In particular, the results show that an increase of 0.05 points (or one standard deviation) in the GGI is associated with an increase in the performance of girls in maths, relative to boys, of 7.47 points -- equivalent to about one and a half months of schooling.
Because they do it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-progressive societies don't encourage girls to do things like science and math in the first place, they expect them to adopt 'traditional female roles'.
Should do a comparative study of marriage stability as well!
Perhaps women from such progressive cultures make terrible mothers and wives, perhaps men from such progressive cultures make terrible husbands and fathers...
Re: (Score:2)
doubtful
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
doubtful
That's the beauty of the scientific method. It gives us a framework to actually test such things, so we don't have to rely on "well I doubt it, therefore you are wrong and we should not study this further".
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:5, Informative)
This study already provides evidence that parents in progressive societies are better parents, because they are at least better at educating their daughters in math.
Disclaimer: When my daughter was in elementary school, she placed 2nd in the district in the Math Olympiad, but now that she is a teenager, she thinks I am a terrible parent.
Re: (Score:2)
but now that she is a teenager, she thinks I am a terrible parent.
I'm not surprised. How many times has she pleaded with you to stop 'ruining her life'? How many times has she confessed that her 'life is over'?
Those are some pretty dramatic consequences! You must be some horrible tyrant who 'never lets her do anything'.
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
In the old days (not THAT long ago, say 20+ years back), this used to simply referred to as being a parent.
A parent is NOT there to be a child's friend.
I became great friends with my parents when I was in my mid-20's or 30's or so....but when raising kids, you have to sometimes be unpopular and be the rules maker and enforcer.
Re: (Score:3)
this used to simply referred to as being a parent
Obviously. Anyone who's dealt with teenagers has heard all of those things I've happily put in quotes. Every teenage thinks their parents are horrible and often say those very things when confronted with the typical boundaries their parents have set for them.
I thought it was pretty obvious, but judging from the moderation and the AC below, the intent has been lost. I assume it's because neither you or the AC below have any experience with kids that age.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously...
Well I got it ... and laughed. :)
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "better parent". Parenting skills probably don't hinge on whether a child is a math genius or not, but rather on the children being provided the opportunity to be functioning adults and to have the opportunity to excel at whatever they are interested in.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really true. Even beyond excelling at whatever they're interested in, I'm gratified that my kid grew up to be a kind, decent and generous person.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to being a parent of a teenager.
My daughter went through a similar period. She listened to terrible music, ran with kids I didn't like, and basically accused me of being Hitler x (Stalin + Pol Pot). She's now about to finish up her PhD in Math and is a great person (due mostly to my wife, I think).
As the father of a teenage gi
Gender equality vs. marriage stability (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? Of course, there is... The average duration of marriage in a country and the number of children born to single mothers is quite well documented in most countries. In fact, it is probably better documented, than the pupils' Math-achievements.
A number of such studies have been done [google.com], in fact — but all I'm hitting are "paywalled" results, for some reason. As a matter of fact, TFA does not link to the actual study either... Khm...
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at those studies, what they actually say is more along the lines of, "In progressive societies, women are not considered chattel slaves and can actually divorce abusive husbands without being set on fire or having their heads chopped off."
There are societies in the world that are not becoming more progressive. You could probably find your way to one, but th
Re: (Score:3)
so you're saying that in more regressive societies that frown on feminine independence and advocate staying in oppressive marriages...that more women stay in marriages they might rather leave?
earthshattering news doctor.
Re: (Score:3)
to be clear, you are equating "good wife" or "good mother" with "doesnt leave abusive husband."
holy fuck you are stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers, because they actually want to do something other than be in the kitchen or on their backs. Girls in those types of households are not going to do well at math because they are expected to learn specific roles, that do not include it.
Personally I would take an engineering wife.
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers, because they actually want to do something other than be in the kitchen or on their backs. Girls in those types of households are not going to do well at math because they are expected to learn specific roles, that do not include it.
Personally I would take an engineering wife.
Half of your combined salary will go on childcare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
... then, if both parents are engineers, more than half their income will be taxed to pay for others' kids' kindergartening
Re: (Score:3)
Along with that Swedish families get 480 days of parent
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that for people who are bound to be at the top of the middle class payscales, they would be made to contribute far more to the state treasury than their own costs pull out.
If the GP poster had referred to a family of janitors, it wouldn't be so. But he/she said engineers.....
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:4, Informative)
My point was that for people who are bound to be at the top of the middle class payscales, they would be made to contribute far more to the state treasury than their own costs pull out.
If the GP poster had referred to a family of janitors, it wouldn't be so. But he/she said engineers.....
The family of janitors would require at least 3 janitors working for every one child in daycare. It would be more effective to have one stay-at-home janitor and the rest working.
This is where things break down badly; the 'entitled', middle classes have so little idea how the low-end of the pay-scale lives they think their 'engineer' lifestyles give them some kind of insight into how society functions.
Poverty in places like the US and Canada is just fucking massively worse than the poverty in any European country, maybe except some Eastern European countries, the extreme ends of which which still wouldn't be as bad as the extreme ends of poverty in Canada. This is why Bob Geldof can criticize Canada for not being ambitious enough in its foreign aid spending; because he imagines Canadian poverty to be about the same as Irish or British poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sure, crap can happen.
But **on average**, by nature of the "progressive" taxation system, of course those at above-median income will have to pay more, probably far more, than they take out.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sure, crap can happen.
But **on average**, by nature of the "progressive" taxation system, of course those at above-median income will have to pay more, probably far more, than they take out.
But not necessarily more than they'd pay on their own for the same services if they were only available from private providers operating for-profit businesses. The wealthier you are, the less that is true but I'm guessing that even engineers enjoy the added benefits of paid family leave and more vacation per year that the more progressive society provides. Even though I make a decent income, it would be a net gain for me if my taxes were 50 percent, but I didn't have to pay for my kids' college tuition, ou
Re: (Score:2)
"On average, a US citizen is going to pay more for health insurance than than they will ever get back in services"
Of course - and that is true of any type of insurance, anywhere. That's the whole premise of insurance. It can economically cover unpredictable perils, not routine ones.
"Another benefit from a more progressive society is there is less of a gap between rich and poor in the first place"
Why is that supposed to be good?
"so there is less need to subsidize"
Now wait a minute - don't these "progressiv
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.
Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.
Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.
They aren't "claims". Those are the laws, policies, and the stats. You pay less in taxes in the US, but you're getting less in return and just having to pay somebody else (more) for those services. For health care, you're paying insurance companies and your paying with lower wages because your company is paying the insurance companies. Your either saving for your kids' college education or they're going into debt or both. Instead of the government managing a pension fund on your behalf, you have to pay into a 401K, IRA, or equivalent.
I guess if you consider health care, retirement savings, and college tuition for your kids to be optional expenses, then yes, you come out way ahead in the US.
I'm an IT director at a 100 person non-profit. I'm making a decent wage, but not a fortune. My wife works part time (less than 20 hours a week). We have what's considered to be an upper-middle class income. She was working very little when our kids were really young. So it's not like the lifestyle you're describing is foreign to me. But, by the time our kids get through college I'll be just a few years from retirement and I wish we were socking more away. We don't live extravagantly and we have virtually no debt. If 50+ percent of our income went to taxes and we didn't have to worry about health care costs, college tuition, or saving for retirement, I would take that deal.
I know lots of people my age and older that have virtually no retirement savings. 68% of working age people in the US are not participating in an employee sponsored retirement plan. Presumably some of them don't need to, but I'm guessing that's a small percentage. We are headed for a real crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reason why so many in the US hate taxes and consider them to be fundamentally evil is that there is very low return in benefits. People in other countries that get benefits aren't as grumpy.
Re: (Score:2)
The same is true for taxes. You pay more in taxes, meaning you have less income. Or corporations are taxed, so they have to pay you a lower wage, or have to charge a higher
Re: (Score:2)
The free market depends on a level playing field which rarely exists (at least not for long) without collective bargaining and regulation, - and then it's no longer a free market. Then you have a mixed economy which I think is a reasonable solution.
If I win the lottery, I can consume more, b
Re: (Score:3)
People expect the government to be incompetent. This makes it hard to hire competent people for government jobs, because no one competent wants to work somewhere that is organisationally incompetent (if nothing else, it will make it hard for them to get the next job). This means that, in the absence of competent people, even the competent government agencies trend towards incompetence. This then lea
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, it's not being taken from you to begin with. You can also live off a single income if you're engineers. If both of you work, you can just bank the 2nd income.
Your claims are absurd. They sound like old Soviet propaganda.
My wife can earn about the same as me. It's more efficient for her to stay home than it is for her to work. If she works part-time (20 hours/week normal for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 40 hours the remainder of the year) , then pretty much all of her income goes to childcare, we don't get to bank it. If she works full-time (40 hours/week for 1/2-3/4 of the year, 60-80 hours the remainder), then we still lose about half or more of her income between taxes and childcare, netting us a small amount; in the end, her ti
Re: (Score:2)
My wife may have wanted to stay home anyway to be with the kids. She's lucky that she works in an industry where she can make decent money for part time work and she can take a few years off and still be employable. That's kind of rare.
There is a significant financial risk for women who do stay home. If something happens to their husband, - he dies or is no longer able to work, they're screwed. After a few years at home, it's going to be much harder to fin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How so? The average cost is 11.666k per year.. That means we are only making a combined ~23k a year? Even at its highest, 18.773k would mean that 2 engineers are only making ~37k?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course. You’re so enlightened.
Except did you ever think that a woman would want to be a stay at home mother and raise her kids. Probably not, because you're so force fed progressive garbage that the actual wants of the woman are obsolete. It's a two ways street. Society currently force feeds woman that they need to be a working woman to be seen as strong and empowered, when some of the strongest woman I've seen gave of 6 figure jobs to raise their kids.
I bet you'd like an engineering wife, then she
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure what your statement has to do with the conversation. IF she wants to do that then it is her right, but generally a woman like that will be poorer at math...
Also I am an engineer. I like intelligent people, I dont need a woman to take care of me, and I dont want a woman that I have to take care of. I want a partner not a slave.
Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion (Score:2)
You just stated that stay at home moms are "slaves". Good grief, how do you not see the horse crap spraying out of your head at this point? How do you breath through all the manure?
TFA states that women are smarter in Math in progressive countries, but there is a missing fact that the majority of women choose not to work in STEM fields in those same countries. TFA is sporting a meaningless statement to support a positive progressive appearance, instead of the reality. People like you buy right into the
Re: (Score:3)
I looked at that Gender Gap Index and I was intrigued where the ex-Soviet countries fell. They were VERY egalitarian but they rank poorly on that list. It really makes me wonder what's feeding that chart. These kinds of things often end up being highly skewed by a particular metric that may or may not be all that relevant. Examinations like this also tend to magnify the negative and ignore the positive.
The whole thing seems meant to feed someone's ego and political agenda.
Re:Wholly F^W^WTRIGGERED by your delusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that you can only talk about the extreme minority of "raising rich men's kids"? Why is it that you can only paint being a parent as this pathetic lowly task? Is there any job more important than raising the next generation of humans? No, but people fall into the delusion trap because they are told that the only thing that matters is having stuff that you buy from a store.
You don't have to think very hard about the debate to figure out that someone, mainly the consumer class, has been getting fucked over by this rhetoric for decades.
Men are completely incapable of growing a baby inside a uterus and giving birth, they are also incapable of breast feeding that baby. Meanwhile women _DO_ have a choice of having kids and raising a family. They also have a choice of working and getting educated. Discrimination laws already exist, and have for nearly half a century covering all possible aspects of work and education equality. Men are the ones given no choice (because "biology"), yet they are consistently painted as the evil oppressor. Delusion is rampant in this country.
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Did she come from an evangelical family, where the gender roles are all but set? If not then what are you trying to counter?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. No offense, but if you're pining for the time spent away with your kids, please go home and be with them. We want employees who are engaged, not pining.
Love,
Your company
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:4, Informative)
In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers...
Until you realize that an Evangelical Conservative view a husband and wife are co-equals, differing responsibilities but equal and submissive to each other (Ephesians 5:21-6:4 [biblegateway.com] and Genesis 2:20-25 [biblegateway.com], among other places.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of evangelical conservative views, of course they make terrible wives and mothers, ...
I admit that I only know 4 evangelical conservative Christian families (which is probably dwarfed by the extensive studies that you've done); however, the women in the family tend to be well educated.
Family A: Mom has a degree in nuclear engineering. She worked the field until she realized that the public school system was completely failing her kids. She home schooled them until they entered high school. Their daughter is now studying to be a vet.
Family B: Mom has a degree in mathematics. She de
Re: (Score:2)
Praised for doing what is within their gender roles. There is a difference between evangelical conservatives and the normal religious conservative, which I think you are failing to recognize. Generally speaking evangelical conservatives want to force the old school gender roles, and blame pretty much everything on no longer having them.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no, I am a progressive. most of my family, evangelical Christians, are though.
Re:Because they do it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Societies that either do not let marriages end, or else restrict who can initiate such a divorce, or even societies where such a divorce is possible but where one party may end up without any of the resources gained during the marriage. All of these conditions either prevent divorce, formally restrict divorce, or otherwise make ending a marriage impossible or impractical.
Re: (Score:3)
I think there is some truth in it.
In societies with a high gender gap, women are typically taught to be good mothers when men are more career-oriented. This not only make good mothers but also keep couples together because there is a real necessity since they have different roles.
In societies with a low gender gap both women and men do the same thing. And in western societies where career is often more highly regarded than families values, there will be more and more career women and less and less good moth
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is some truth in it.
In societies with a high gender gap, women are typically taught to be good mothers when men are more career-oriented. This not only make good mothers but also keep couples together because there is a real necessity since they have different roles.
In societies with a low gender gap both women and men do the same thing. And in western societies where career is often more highly regarded than families values, there will be more and more career women and less and less good mothers. Problem is, the reverse is not true for men : they are still expected to be career oriented rather than become good fathers. And because both parents can function independently, there is less insensitive for them to stay together.
Just look at what kind of example we give for "progressive" societies : almost always career women, almost never stay-at-home fathers. This is not a progressive society, this is a productivity oriented society with little regard for the family.
Indeed, just look at Japan with its non-progressive system and many stay-at-home mums with dads who spend an average 15 minutes a day with their kids... Thats not being a good dad.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so what if? We really have outgrown the need to produce as many offspring as possible by now. This dirt-ball is overcrowded, and individual freedoms and growth rightfully is viewed much more important in progressive societies than producing the next generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so what if? We really have outgrown the need to produce as many offspring as possible by now. This dirt-ball is overcrowded, and individual freedoms and growth rightfully is viewed much more important in progressive societies than producing the next generation.
Yes, thats why the population of Muslims in Europe is growing and the population of native Europeans is shrinking. He who is represented in the gene pools of the future is he who has won. Freedom is irrelevant; live free, have no children, lose the future.
We have children to colonise, dominate and exploit the future. The human race is on a journey, its supposed to be from the bestial to the superhuman. So long as bestial humans outbreed the civilised humans the future is lost, the human race is lost and ins
Re: (Score:2)
It is stable. Fact. Nothing naïve about it.
Why do you think "stable" is a synonym of "good"?
Because it's pretty clear that's exactly what you meant, your disingenuous attempt to portray your original comment otherwise notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Reactionary positions aren't necessarily wrong. Those traditions weren't 'terrible', just rigid, and they were needed for society to function. The difference between survival and starvation depended greatly on the manual labor capacity of the family. Thus she was on her back or in the kitchen preparing food, and meanwhile he was out in the field maintaining the next harvest. This narrative of oppression needs to stop. It was hard for BOTH. Stop lying about history for the sake of your 'progressive' narr
Re: (Score:3)
It is also not true that women didn't do backbreaking manual labor. Maintaining a household in the absence of modern conveniences is no trivial matter. Even simple things like the laundry become a major chore. Modern people in general have no clue and can't relate at all. That's not getting into whether women worked on the farm or factory.
A lot of people have this "Father Knows Best" view of the past that didn't even exist for the working class then.
Re: (Score:2)
Bloody hell, I've got a sockpuppet and I didn't know about it!
Re: (Score:2)
You should hear what she says about you.
Re: (Score:2)
You should hear what she says about you.
I do. All the fucking time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's good. Please keep her busy until after the NBA finals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As ability to leave a marriage that isn't woking is encapsulated under "progressive" the stability of a marriages does not make a very good metric for evaluating the quality of the members of said marriage as wives/husbands, let alone parents as a function of progressivness.
You're likely to get terrible marriages that drag on because divorce is stigmatized, or financially untenable, showing up as false positives when measuring stability.
yeah but people call a marriage 'not working' for much more minor things. Its related to the culture of entitlement, laziness and generally being special snow flakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's that. Every so often you will hear in patient forums about someone being abandoned by their spouse after a diagnosis. These people made a contract that probably included terms like "in sickness and health". You just shake your head and feel greatful that things weren't worse for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That has an element of untruthiness to it, because it's noticed as a paradox that, as societies get more progressive and there's less gender 'inequality' in broader terms, women tend towards traditionally female occupations. Whereas, in countries that are deemed gender unequal, those places tend towards a lot more of a gender balance in traditionally male dominated fields, such as engineering.
The explanation is, that in societies where women can do what they want to do, well, they do, they're uninhibited to
Helps boys too (Score:5, Informative)
There seems to be a correlation with boys doing better too. Of course correlation is not causation, but anecdotally teachers say that girls being more engaged in maths helps the whole class.
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be a correlation with boys doing better too. Of course correlation is not causation, but anecdotally teachers say that girls being more engaged in maths helps the whole class.
Reminds me of a few studies done some years ago on gender-segregated classrooms for math. Girls in "all girls" classrooms did better than girls in mixed classrooms. But boys in "all boys" classrooms did NOT do better (and in fact did slightly worse, if I remember correctly).
At the time, I believe the study explanation was that girls (particularly at adolescent ages) tend to be more reserved in the presence of boys, so they didn't tend to ask as many questions when they were struggling in mixed classroom
Being engaged in class (Score:5, Interesting)
Then practice was over and they played a game. I was surprised to see that the boys were focused and played together well as a team. The girls meanwhile spent a lot of time talking with each other, and three of them ended up being hit by the ball because they weren't even watching it.
It's just one anecdote so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it. But I'm starting to form the opinion that girls do much better in structured educational environments where the kids sit quietly in place while the teacher dumps data onto them, while boys do better in immersive, chaotic trial-and-error environments where they learn by doing and experiencing. Unfortunately, it seems schools are busy eradicating the latter type of instruction in favor of the former.
Re: (Score:2)
It also created great tests scores in Math and Science.
Again, I wonder why the old Soviet republics don't do better on these metrics. The imposed equality with a vengance. They're the template for places like Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
Are sure sure did not? USSR mathematicians were world-class and leading the field in quote a few areas. Of course, that is in the past.
Men's cooking skills (Score:2)
On the other hand, the women from those societies are far better cooks relative to the men. And laundry... my whites have never been so white!
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the women from those societies are far better cooks relative to the men. And laundry... my whites have never been so white!
Yeah they should also see if theres a correlation between looks!
The old song... "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife!"
"Man your wifes so ugly"
"Yeah she's ugly. But she sure can cook!"
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to get this grant, you need to come up with better than that. First, define "progressive" such that it includes proficiency in domestic skills by both partners. Then look for statistical correlation with any single domestic skill (in this case, "cooking"). NOW, you're playing with power.
That is exactly what this study did, by the way, only they used "education" as the definition and "math" as the correlated variable. Educated girls are better at math! Wow!
Re: (Score:2)
My wife and mother-in-law specifically can't cook because of "progressive" feminists notions imposed upon by a well meaning grandparent. Both were actually discouraged from cooking lest they become housewives.
Whereas I was taught to cook because of a more conservative notion of self-reliance.
Practice makes perfect! News at 11. (Score:4, Funny)
Discover how hundreds of millions of women elevated their intellectual capacity beyond that of their stone-age ancestors using just this one weird trick [youtube.com] !
Study Authors need to learn math (Score:5, Insightful)
Missed opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
As any systems engineer can tell you, weighting one control function (affirmative action) can help return a system to a desired state more quickly (in this case, equality between boys and girls). But this by design creates an underdamped [hydraulicspneumatics.com] system which will overshoot [wikipedia.org] your desired state, or even arrive at a stable state offset from the desired state. You have to be ready to remove the weighting when the system begins to get close to the desired state so as not to overshoot, and allow it to quickly stabilize at the desired state.
Unfortunately, that isn't happening. TFA is another example - taking one of the few (only) areas where girls still lag behind boys and highlighting it as something which needs to be corrected, while ignoring that girls have far exceeded boys in all other areas. There's always going to be some natural variance with any system. If you insist that one group in that system never lag behind another group, that's not going to result in equality. You're going to end up with a DC offset where that first group never lags because its average is so much higher than the other group's average. i.e. You're going to create a huge inequality opposite the one you were originally trying to correct. That's pretty much the state we're currently in, with girls far outperforming boys in all aspects of education [cbsnews.com] except math. These educational programs favoring girls should've been dismantled two decades ago (date on the CBS article is 2002).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Critical fact: the world does NOT revolve around your personal life experiences.
Tell that to social justice activists..
No shit sherlock? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were The Register, this article would have the no-shit-sherlock icon posted all over it.
I bet research would further demonstrate that girls do better in pretty much everything, from STEM to driving, in more progressive societies. That's what happens when you don't treat females like cattle.
Re: (Score:2)
However, when the results do so accurately match common sense, what we don't need is a news item. There is still truth in the "dog bites man" non-news.
Re: (Score:2)
Western society does not treat women like cattle. That would be islamic countries, who, for reasons that make no sense, are still defended by the left despite their oppressive treatment of women.
Jumping to conclusions (Score:2)
Most commenters jumped to the same conclusion but that's not what the study says. This is a correlation, the arrow of causation can go either way. Maybe the smaller pay gap is the result of the smaller skill gap and not the other way around.
Not really shocking, although not very telling (Score:2)
Expectations (Score:2)
It may simply be a matter of expectations. Gartner recently presented a lecture about creativity at the workplace. The people who were the most creative in studies were the ones where there was a high expectation of creativity from them. I believe the same could be said for STEM as all of these areas require a high degree of creativity to be successful.
In short, in a more developed more progressive society, girls are *expected* to do better at math, so they do. It is a case of people rising to a challen
From the not-surprising-news-department... (Score:2)
Research by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has found that the 'maths gender gap', the relative under performance of girls at maths, is much wider in societies with poor rates of gender equality.
Shocking. Societies that let girls study math results in girls who are better at math. Who would have guessed?
Did we really need a study to confirm this?
Re: (Score:2)
No. We really didn't.
However, I would love a big fat research grant to run a study whose conclusion is to pat myself on the back by stating something obvious. Therefore, I approve of this sort of study and wish to see more. I was also thinking of a study that shows that in progressive societies, females drive considerably better than those in say, Saudi Arabia. My conclusions and paper are already written, I just need some money and to collect a little bit of random data to make pretty graphs with to pu
Nit Picking (Score:2)
good (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, finally perhaps the SJWs will focus their ardor where it belongs: on improving the lot in life of the 2 billion women treated ACTUALLY LIKE SHIT, instead of trying to fix the (dubious) "hardships" women face in the developed world.
Gender gap index is crap (Score:2)
From wikipedia :
The assumption is that women are strictly disadvantaged compared to men and as such, only measures where women are traditionally disadvantaged to men are used. Information about gender imbalances to the advantage of women is explicitly prevented from affecting the score.
You can't get more biased than that.
Ant the criteria are :
Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment
Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education
Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures
Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio. In this case parity is not assumed, there are assumed to be less female births than male (944 female for every 1,000 males), and men are assumed to die younger. Provided that women live at least six percent longer than men parity is assumed, if it is less than six percent it counts as a gender gap.
The first 3 are fine but WTF about the 4th one. The situation here is better for women so let just bias the score... More importantly, one of the main reason women stay alive longer is because men tend to have more dangerous jobs, do more unhealthy activities and take more risks. In other words, the gender gap itself cause a pro-woman bias in life expectancy. The best country by GGI (Iceland) and the worst (Chad) have about the same d
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are there so many male engineers out of conservative societies?
Re: (Score:2)
At least fundamentalist conservative societies have far less of them or ones of far lower quality. Independent or analytic thought is not encouraged in those societies. It is absolutely critical in any STEM professional, regardless of gender however. (Even if some of the commentators here give the opposite impression...)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This whole article is progressive propaganda.
Girls are doing better in school nowadays because schools are engineered for girls. For example, most young boys do not have a 30+ minute attention span. They rather be DOING than taking in information and being strictly obedient to authority.
So girls can have their schools... they NEED it as a measure of self worth. Men don't for the most part. Remember than the world evolved mostly because of men... the explorers, the scientists, the engineers, the warriors
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. I see how the kids are indoctrinated around here. The boys are pushed into football and the girls are all trying to be cheerleaders. Girls from non-immigrant families are not encouraged to excel in academics. Some of the non-immigrant parents even show disdain for parents that encourage academic excellence.
Re: (Score:3)
Ebonics is fine for California but for the rest of the world stick to the proper American MATH!
You need to go back to school. Ebonics is a dialect of English. Math is not a dialect of English. As for proper American MATH, it uses Arabic numerals and Algebra (Arabic "al-jabr" meaning "reunion of broken parts"). God is great!
Re: (Score:2)
God is great!
Math is hard!
Re: (Score:2)
I damned sure didnt see a penny for my study on the gap between girls who study english in a dark room with eleven scorpions and boys who study english in a fumigation tent.
I don't know why you'd need a special grant to just observe students in the temporary overflow classroom trailers after lunch on chili day.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not even a half-rhyme for "Yemen".