Einstein in space

Men, Math, and Masculinity – Part 1

Can one attribute the low rankings of women in engineering to feminist inspired interventions?

Is it possible that by attempting to eradicate a non-critical advantage in math, that we are distilling math and engineering education for both boys and girls?

Bertrand Russell once said: “Mathematics is the field where we don’t know what we are talking about.”  This reveals the nature of mathematics – which is distinct from the machinery called arithmetic (which is taught in elementary school). Mathematics is an abstract discipline, relying on internal visualization and abstract focus.

Recent research has shown that women have more neurons that travel between the brain’s hemispheres and men have more neurons that travel along the hemispheres.1 Some suggest this enables a woman’s communication and multi-tasking skills (I rarely see published articles that object to these abilities in women), and men have a greater ability to focus and single task (I usually see published articles that object to these abilities of men).

Men created the language of math through visualization and abstraction. In addition to the aforementioned biological differences, there is social research to indicate that the top one percent in math will always be male dominated.2 And it is this one percent that gives rise to the thirty point difference in math SAT scores.

But does this gender difference at that top level matter? Are current interventions failing because they are inordinately focused on a percentage that has little relevance (except to feminist ego)?

The top one percent in mathematical ability does not drive science, engineering and technology; they populate math departments. The top twenty-percent in math drives civilization and women are capable of thriving and excelling at that level. I contend that women drop out in greater numbers from engineering than they normally would have if, instead, they were not given false assurance through current “Girl Engineer” programs; or if the pedagogy had been properly constructed to draw them into the top twenty, ten or five percent; or if we did not create artificial silos between the sub-disciplines of math to enable assessment strategies.  I believe that if proposed redresses are premised on “misogyny,” the fix will fail. Mathematicians and engineers do not have a problem with women, today. It is politically correct interventions that have a problem with the nature of math and engineering.

In part, I believe that the very thing that will inhibit women from advancing in engineering is society’s diminishing respect for aspects of the masculine mind and a feminism that has migrated from a focus on social equality and now insists on biological equality.

Men dissect; and this is a reflection of the very masculinity that current popular discourse disparages. Popular media views men as cold for their desire to “conquer” and “dominate” the observable world. The popular discourse prefers a holistic understanding of the world. And it has dulled the distinction between magic and beauty, undermining one aspect of the masculine brain.

When I see a rainbow, I want to slice it open, analyze it and understand it from a perspective grounded in mathematical physics. I want to dissect it as if it were an object (e.g. Why are the colors reversed in the internal secondary rainbow in a double rainbow?). Contemporary talk-show culture paints this as if I am objectifying the rainbow, and that I should simply relax and appreciate its spiritual magic: I have been told as such and by women (“Can’t you just enjoy the beauty of a rainbow?”). I claim, however, that my curiosity is my way of trying to understand the physical world that surrounds me. Magical mysticism is lazy; beauty reveals itself through cold understanding.

The top one percent in math is male dominated because of the male brain, and this will likely never change. The few women in the top one percent think like men. Sophie Germain (April 1, 1776 – June 27, 1831) admitted to dressing like a man to attend the French Academy to make her contributions to engineering. A feminist would suggest she did this to circumvent the patriarchy. I suggest she blossomed in male culture. When a man suggests that to succeed in math, a woman should think like a man, he is rebuked. But what is wrong with thinking like a man? I have no objection when the media insists that my compassion derives from my feminine nature. I take that in stride. So what is the problem with accepting that math/focus/abstraction derive from masculinity? When did it become an insult to think like a man?

The top twenty percent of men and women can excel in mathematical applications in science and engineering but academic feminists and policy makers have become fixated on the top one percent.  Google “math, boys, girls, scores” and see hundreds of funded research papers that purport to explain a thirty point difference in math scores. Does this difference really matter considering that those thirty points are attributed to the top one percent?  Whenever women excel over men in any discipline, their virtues are extolled in the media. When men excel over women, the media paints this as a bad problem that must be fixed — and now we are “fixing” engineering by simplifying math.

The institutions driving change in mathematics education are reducing mathematics down to machinery and algorithm in an attempt to close a slight gender gap. In the process, they are making math boring and this will have ramifications in later years. They are meeting with some partial success. Girls excel at the machinery of calculations: division, subtraction, algorithms, numerical methods, integration and so on – what we know as arithmetic. But then the abstract nature of math reveals itself as essential as their studies advance. Then, in reaction, women start to drop out of engineering when they see a false advantage evaporate. Society blames misogyny for this.

I am in awe of mathematicians, for they evince one aspect of masculinity in its cold detachment from reality and its embrace of abstraction. I am not in that top one percent: and I am fine with that.  But I find those men as inspiring as chess players (there are also papers that try to explain the disparity in chess, too; none of which make any sense). There is an anecdote from the life of Linus Pauling; He was delivering a guest lecture and after scrawling theoretical mathematics all over three blackboards, a student raised his hand and pointed out that 7 times 8 had been multiplied wrong in one of the earlier steps. Pauling just waved away the fact that the numerical conclusion was obviously not accurate. Pauling’s answer was, “Oh, that error, yes; it does not matter; numbers are just placeholders for the concept.”

The solution in engineering is to raise expectations. Instead, we are doing the opposite. We are lowering the bar on math by eliminating the abstraction; and we have practically deleted physics from the elementary school curriculum. And we are doing this to eradicate a gap in math that stems from the top one percent. We are no longer inspiring and challenging our better students.  The goal should not be to ensure that girls score as well as boys at that distal end – let nature take its course, there, without interventions. The goal should be to create interventions that retain more girls in the top ten or twenty percent while continuing to inspire the boys. And this could be done with interactive technologies if feminism relaxed the stranglehold of its obsession on the top one percent.

Society today condemns the very masculinity that created mathematics. The Asian countries, less riddled with politically toxic academic and common feminism, are out-performing the world in math, while the more feminist countries are failing in math. One does not have to embrace the misogyny of eastern culture; but by the same token, the west has embraced a misandry.

Today, we are reducing math to word games. Common Core Math in the U.S. is a perfect example of this: it is reducing math to verbal skills. In the future, girls will soon excel over boys in math (which, of course, will not really be math: just exaggerated arithmetic). But then girls will get to college and confront the wall of abstraction without teachers who can inspire them with a detached (and, yes) masculine perspective. Naturally, the politically correct will blame male custodians or male bus drivers or a campus rape culture or maybe they will turn on male fruit flies down in the biology labs, and blame them. Many more boys will never get to college: they will fail out of it, never having learned the abstract underpinnings of math. (The new SAT will actually reduce the number of math questions and increase the number of verbal questions.)   But I suppose that will make the politically correct happy, for then there will be total equality: NO men in the top ten percent and NO women in the top ten percent. Feminists will get what they wanted: a country of total math and engineering equality: zero = zero. Meanwhile, China, and its excess of two hundred million men will dominate technology.

AN ANECDOTAL ASIDE:

Engineering has two aspects: SYNTHETIC and ANALYTIC.Synthetic goes by the name ENGINEERING DESIGN.Analytic goes by the name APPLIED MATH AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE.

Today elementary schools are trying to teach engineering.  But in reality, they are teaching Engineering Design, only: build Lego Robots, toothpick bridges, etc.; and then write reports and project plans. The girls excel. The boys don’t. This is because “design” hinges on collaboration and communication: verbal and communication skills.

However, future engineering will derive from APPLIED MATH AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE.  We need the math to create new microscopic machines and quantum computing and robotics.  And the girls have been deluded into thinking that engineering is about communication and not math. It is not that girls cannot do this, but that policy makers do not know what engineering is really about. They think they are inspiring girls; but they are inspiring with only half the picture. And when the girls fail, feminists will blame misogyny and male exclusion practices.

Some men have excluded women from engineering; but that type of misogyny is now nearly non-existent and not enough to warrant interventions. Contrary to what some think, men do not exclude women from engineering; men seek a place to call their own (a distinction between cause and effect). Today, spaces for men are vanishing while spaces for women continue to blossom.  Rather than interpret male resistance to female engineers as a negative view of women, why not consider it a self-indulgent desire for a male space? Then, upon recognizing that, and curtailing the negative stereotypes of male spaces, maybe men will be more inviting to women in engineering. What do feminists want anyway: to change men and destroy all male space (even disallowing sixth grade boys to pee in their own bathrooms), or to understand the issue and help women? These days, it appears to be the former. Consider the discipline of dynamics.

When I was in the fourth grade, boys learned to pee while standing.  We often made a mess (boys are always in motion, fighting with the world, it seems), but the custodians were paid to clean the mess. 

To understand dynamics (the study of motion), one must brutally sever an object from its surroundings.  Then, one must replace all formally contacting objects with forces.  This is the essence of Newton’s third law.

I remember, one time, this one kid peed out of the third floor window.  That afternoon, the boys kept laughing in class and we all got in trouble because no one wanted to snitch.

This process is called the creation of “free body diagrams.”  It is not holistic, it is not integral. It is brutal rupture of an object from its environment, enabling one to focus on it exclusively.

The boys would compete against each other as we aimed our streams, like rockets launching from a silo.

Then, after such isolation, one employs the discipline of differential equations to model the trajectory of an object.  Naturally, it is not entirely accurate: it is only a model aimed at a prediction.

Often, we would joke with each other.  Sometimes, we made fun of each other.  Sometimes we deliberately aimed at each other.  But eventually, we learned to pee while standing.

Then, one must solve the differential equations.  In reality, one could inspect the terms and anticipate the motion, but today students drive blindly and relentlessly to get a number and overlook the beauty of the predictive quality of equations.  We turn to computer programs that circumcise the complicated equations to obtain an answer (an answer that is often sterile and meaningless: just a number).  Today, students turn to computer programs to get an answer in order to do well on a test. But in that process, a deeper understanding of the phenomena never emerges.

We boys learned to pee by watching each other and getting a little jealous of each other’s aim.  Maybe, sometimes, we were jealous of that one kid’s parabolic fluid trajectory out the window.

You see, one does not need to solve every equation.  In reality, one can inspect equations and deduce their “tendencies.”  One could see, from looking at equations, that the “tendency” of an equation is to reveal a behavior.  But engineers are losing the ability to “envision” the “tendency” of equations as we continue to sterilize math in order to check bubbles on an exam. Today, students are expected not to act until they know they have a direct hit on the computational solution and a numerical result.

The process of not solving the equations for complete solutions, but using them to extract information, is a critical aspect of engineering focus – and is being lost. In the past, one did this by sketching a solution on the back of an envelope, often in a sloppy way.

Lately, I have come to find out that in some schools, the boys are told not to pee while standing until they first learn to pee properly. This is humiliating for them; for they are indirectly told that the boy’s room is not for them alone (it’s bad enough there are so few male spaces; now even the men’s room does not belong to them). They are lectured on how to be boys and are expected to be boys on the terms of a custodial staff.

To help the girls, we are removing the detached abstraction of math and replacing it with a simplistic arithmetic of word games that are more suitable for girls and their communication skills.

Much worse, the very ability of boys to get down and dirty with math is being “fixed.” The walls of disciplines – strictly enforced for testing and evaluation (but not for learning) – discourage the ability and/or desire to question the legitimacy of physical models. Who would want to question a model if the teacher might incorrectly assume your question is one of ignorance and not insight?

So that is why I tell my son to pee while standing despite what the school says. For the goal is not the end. To pee while standing is irrelevant; the goal is to learn how to pee while standing (to learn how to do what men do, with other boys): the goal is a process, not an end. The goal is to aim, to miss, to reload, to aim better, to make the attempt at a solution, to splatter the floor, to abandon one method, to learn that the world will not end if there is urine on a wall, to reload, to pee out the window and watch the parabolic flow of fluid, to get a partial solution, to break a barrier and finally hit the target. And if the school has an issue with how boys learn, they can remind the custodians and teachers that they work for the students, not the other way around. It’s a toilet, not a boy.

Let the boys be boys, again. We have already ensured social interventions to respect a woman when she says “no”. Now it is time to back off from the endless vilification of men for a while and tell the feminists to take a step back from the continued vilification of things masculine. Let the boys have their recess, let them shoot things (and study trajectories of imagined bullets or urine), let them fling mud or footballs; yes, even let them be slightly aggressive. Otherwise, we should learn to speak Chinese.

References:

[1] Madhura Ingalhalikar, et. al. Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain, PNAS vol.111 no.2, 9/2013
[2] Benbow, et. al. Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning, American Psychological Society, Vol.11, No.6, 11/2000

Editor’s note: Feature image by DonkeyHotey

Update: Professor Impelluso was, not long after publication of this article, subjected to a campaign of lies, harassment, and abuse from Gender Ideologues on Facebook and other sites run by hateful ideological bullies. That gave rise to his writing a reasoned response, which you may want to also read. See Men, Math, and Masculinity, Part 2. –DE

About Thomas Impelluso

Thomas Impelluso was born and raised in the Bronx -- his greatest achievement. He holds a BA in Art History (Columbia U.) and a Ph.D. in engineering (UCSD). He is now both an emeritus professor of engineering at a US university, and a professor of engineering in Europe. He is married to a beautiful woman (in every sense of the word) and has two children.

View All Posts
  • billybob

    pmsl! +1

  • Aimee McGee

    Cure for poor aim…pingpong ball in the bowl. All males will do their damndest to hit it. Problem solved.

    Seriously, there are three men in my life who are either in the top 1% or tapping on the door to be let into that elite club of mathematical thinkers. Even with my well-conditioned and exercised brain, used to rationalist debates, I can tell they see the world totally differently to me.

    I grew up in the shadow of one of those men, feeling very thick as I compared poorly to him in nearly all school related activities. Until in our 20s we spent some time having to do some stuff together to sort a family matter.

    My brother said to me at the end of the day “I would trade in more than 1/2 of my academic skills to be able to connect and negotiate with people in the way you did today.”

    Anyone who can’t see how exposing cells to a completely different chemical soup throughout their development and lifespan might somehow alter their function is nuts. Gender is not a social construct.

    • Bewildered

      Gender is not a social construct.

      Nature must have foreseen jokers who would think otherwise and try to meddle with her scheme of things and eventually self-destruct.
      It’s a comical sight to watch all these third-rate caricatures of male jerks flaunting their ‘independence’,’freedom’ and ‘toughness’ and all those pathetic manginas claiming that men are damaged women.
      Liberation from sanity is the most dreadful kind of liberation there is in this world.

    • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

      My maternal grandfather has a math prize named after him. :)

    • Graham Strouse

      Well said, Aimee!

  • Bewildered

    One does not have to embrace the misogyny of eastern culture

    This is just the kind of generalization one would expect a feminist to make. Coming from a mathematician/or anyone involved with the world of real science, it’s totally unexpected and OTT.

    • impelluso

      Quite possible. I am the author. This is my first piece. Please don’t stop with that comment. Clue me in on what you mean. I wrote to learn. Are you suggesting that casual comment undermines the piece?

      • Bewildered

        Heck no !Your piece was excellent and your analysis was spot on.
        The existence of the top 1% embarrasses extreme social constructionists no end.
        Because to a very great extent these people succeed despite the system not because of it!
        There’s no way you can train an average guy to become a genius,much less a fun loving bimbo.

        I wish there were some way of rounding up all those snooty social engineers and drilling this adaptation of the famous serenity prayer[secularized !]

        Nature grant me the
        serenity

        to accept the things I cannot change;

        courage to change the things I can;

        and wisdom to know the difference.

      • Astrokid
        • J.G. te Molder

          What? You surprised?

          “Those men across that imaginary line we call the border between our nations are so evil, not only will they hurt our women, they even hurt their own women,” is the classic way turn those men into vile inhuman creatures making it easier to get your men to kill those men.

          This isn’t something new; this exact same line has been used over and over again throughout history.

          Which should tell you; all the people claiming the same about Islamic men? It’s the exact same threat narrative, othering bullshit. Islamic men don’t hit their women either.

          The only thing different today from any other time this line was used? The threat narrative leveled at us by the Ayatollah is also leveled at us by our own feminist governments. Today, the Ayatollah would just have to get some feminist propaganda and show it, and say, “See, even their own women say it!”

    • Dean Esmay

      There is much reason to question whether “Eastern culture” (if one can speak of a unified Eastern culture) is misogynist. Gender roles are fairly rigidly enforced in certain parts of the world but the idea that this is based on contempt for women is highly questionable. Just see, for example, the article “The myth of patriarchal oppression in Iran” as one example of this.

      Why do we so readily believe that men in other cultures beat and rape and treat their women like animals?

      • impelluso

        I see. I see I did overstep. Point taken and accepted. (I wish I could revise it, but leave it as it is: learning),

        • Dean Esmay

          We try not to thought-police our authors. If you wanted to defend the thesis you could. OTOH learning is good too; I’ve more than once written and published a piece only to have my readers clue me in on something big I’d missed or a bad assumption I’d made. I consider that the joy of public discourse!

        • Bewildered

          You have truly imbibed the spirit of science and in my books that’s worthy of the highest respect.

      • Whothehell Cares

        Indeed, cultural chauvinism seems to roll off the tongues of many people who would readily take offense at any other type of chauvinism.

      • Bewildered

        Why do we so readily believe that men in other cultures beat and rape and treat their women like animals?

        Because Eve Ensler says so. There’s something supernatural about the vagina that enables it to easily uncover the truth that mere mortals are unable to see.

  • Mike Buchanan

    In the UK at least, women are so disinclined to pursue careers in engineering that they have to be bribed. Female postgraduate engineering students are entitled to an additional grant of £15,000 p.a. on the grounds of gender alone:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/female-postgraduate-engineering-students-to-be-given-15000-p-a-more-than-their-male-counterparts/

    • Dash Riprock

      Why don’t they pay 15000 to male Nursing or Teaching postgraduate students? Never mind I can guess. It’s because ‘Patriarchy’ isn’t it?

  • Clint Carpentier

    (haunting voice) I can see a future, a dark and oppressed future. The day will come, when boys are so desperate to learn real math, they’ll huddled in the bathroom stall with dry erase markers, doodling calculations as they bravely take turns being scrutinized for height, distance, length, angle, and probable force.

    I can see it now, a teacher (elementary so of course a female teacher) will burst into the little cabal and start hissing and spitting inquisitional derogatories like, “warlocks, devil’s, demons!” And she’ll stop, as she notices at the back of the stall, a girl clutching her dry erase marker in terror, and like a banshee to be heard from every corner of the school, the teacher shreaks, “RRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!”

    • Draigo Luther

      (Dark Gothic Ominus Music background) In the grim darkness of far future there is only feminism….

  • brmerrick

    I can see it now: feminists reading a piece on how boys tend to learn differently from girls. They’ll stumble on the rhetoric surrounding how we piss. They won’t get past that to the larger point being made about what it does to the male brain. They’ll accuse the men’s movement of being piss-obsessed. They’ll strain and strain at that gnat. They’ll mock us. I will love every second of it. I can’t wait to hear the Penis Envy Chorus.

    But seriously:

    Magical mysticism is lazy; beauty reveals itself through cold understanding.

    If only we could set that to music and make them sing it. Being a man who loves to take apart the beautiful music I listen to, I confess that I’d love to hear their lilting voices raise that up.

    However, I’ll settle for their comical incomprehension now that they’ve been confronted by more penis-centered logic. A cold, analytical, and beautiful article.

    • Sulla

      Talking of music, how many great female composers comparable to Mozart or Beethoven are there?

      • Mstrx

        Don’t you understsand? Mozart stole his work from his female secretary.

        • Clint Carpentier

          Slander! Mozart didn’t have secretaries; he had prostitutes.

          • Bewildered

            He must have stolen their panties then.Come to think of it, his sonatas are so rapey. 10 in 5 girls end up as PTSD cases after taking classes in Western Classical Music. It’s time we banned it altogether.

      • Bewildered

        Manginas will correct this gross disparity shortly, by presenting to the world the DEEMED great female composers of the world.

  • http://www.bluedogtalking.com Bluedogtalking

    In professional and academic settings I’ve mentored or tutored a lot of folks in math and engineering. One of the weirdest things that I think that comes up in manosphere sites is the idea that women are somehow constitutionally weaker than men in math, science, whatever – it so happens where I do my day job – yields to no one on technical rigor and it also so happens that easily half of my immediate colleagues are women.
    I have some very strong opinions about pedagogy and curriculum – which tends to just be awful, across the board, and serve no one – male or female. Math education has always suffered because as the author correctly notes – it is too often our best mathematicians who become our instructors. This is misguided – the best mathematicians, I find, tend not to know why they are so good – they have a very difficult time deconstructing their own thought processes for pedagogical effect.
    And our latest batch of correctives ala Common Core are a flipping disaster – you know, when you could go to Singapore, Finland or South Korea and see how they are succeeding at educating their students, hey, let’s just make sh*t up instead!
    There might be something to the whole 1% thing the author gets at, I don’t know – my guess is that if it were 100% true, it gets too much play – … i.e.: seriously what does it matter at all to policy or culture or the general state of humanity if certain genetic constitutions are stand-out superiors, oh, but ONLY when we’re talking about the top 1%? … it’s an interesting biological/genetic quirk out at the eighth sigma, but the very maintenance of proposition that this should have social organizational implications, itself indicates a level of innumeracy.

    Math is a special thing … people, men and women, should be invited in and supported and people like me are there to support them in any flavor they come. For anyone prepared to swallow the pill called “rigor”, there’s basically no barrier, no matter who you are. There are “math wars” with a whole school of thought that would prefer we generate verbally literate sportscasters rather than basketball players and ballerinas, but it’s unfortunate they intersect with the gender wars … they needn’t have anything to do with one another.

    • impelluso

      “There might be something to the whole 1% thing the author gets at, I
      don’t know – my guess is that if it were 100% true, it gets too much
      play – … i.e.: seriously what does it matter at all to policy or
      culture or the general state of humanity if certain genetic
      constitutions are stand-out superiors, oh, but ONLY when we’re talking
      about the top 1%?”

      On the SAT, at the near perfect scores, boys outnumber girls by nearly 2 to 1
      http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/

      If you remove that top one percent, the average for boys and girls (what really drives engineering) is the same. So why the obsession?

      And it has been this way for 30 years. And that difference is the cause of the 33 point difference in average math scores (that so irritate the feminists). And in those 30 years, there have been all sorts of interventinos. And as a result of those interventions…

      Boys still outscore girls 2 to 1 at the top.
      But the average scores are dropping for all.

      And, by the way, boys also are 2 to 1 a the bottom one percent, but you never hear about them, do you?

      • http://www.bluedogtalking.com/ Bluedogtalking

        And …

        Your point exactly?

        So what? What exactly do these statements tell us? What exactly should we change about law, order, or culture, or anything, at all, if we concede every last element of what you are saying?

        My key point is: none of this need matter one iota to the gender wars, unless you make it so. So tell me: exactly how are you going to make it so? And if you aren’t, then again, what is your point?

        As to the numeracy of it: as Steven Pinker has said, “Even if there are sex differences, they’re differences in the means of two overlapping populations, so for any [stereotypically female] trait you care to name, there’ll be many men who are more extreme than most women, and vice versa. So as a matter of both efficiency and of fairness, you should treat every individual as an individual, and not prejudge them.”

        So – since you concede that men only outscore women by 2:1 on their SAT scores – AT THE TOP – on what basis is that exactly that I should not assume that a woman is every bit as capable of any order of math as I am?

        On the contrary – knowing that women of excellent caliber exist in this top echelon, I’d be making a fair wager that there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands or women are are more proficient mathematicians than you, because it’s safe to wager that you are not in this echelon.

        But … know what? So what? That’s what.

        I am not going to advocate anyone deny you anything, because some women are smarter than you. And if some men are smarter than women, on a narrow test of math, in the top 1% … what are you going to do about it? What possible relevance does this have to anything about law, culture, politics?

        • Guest

          Well…. um…. What’s YOUR point, exactly?

          Did you even read the first sentence? Let me repeat it?

          Can one attribute the low rankings of women in engineering to feminist inspired interventions?

          My point is that there IS a gap at the top, you admit it (so what’s the big deal?)

          And my point is that feminists (like you?) appear to be obsessed with it.

          So now we have dumbed down the SAT
          We no longer teach abstraction in the lower levels
          The SAT has eliminated geometry questions.
          We have dropped physics from the classroom
          We no longer let the boys get physical (and that is how I and my son learn about trajectories)
          We lowered the number of math questions on the SAT

          And we hope that these interventions can eliminated a point gap.

          And the only thing it is doing is making everyone dumber…

          Look, do I have to rewrite the entire essay for you just so you can engage in sublte ad hominen attacks with the contrsuction of strawmen posing arguments I never made?

          • impelluso

            Sorry about that double posting… I redid my only mstrx account and it continues to come up automatically. I need to delete it.

        • impelluso

          Well…. um…. What’s YOUR point, exactly?

          Did you even read the first sentence? Let me repeat it?

          Can one attribute the low rankings of women in engineering to feminist inspired interventions?

          My point is that there IS a gap at the top, you admit it (so what’s the big deal?)

          And my point is that feminists appear to be obsessed with it.

          So now we have dumbed down the SAT.
          We no longer teach abstraction in the lower levels.
          The SAT has eliminated geometry questions.
          We have dropped physics from the classroom
          We no longer let the boys get physical (and that is how I and my son learn about trajectories)
          We lowered the number of math questions on the SAT

          And we hope that these interventions can eliminated a point gap.

          And the only thing it is doing is making everyone dumber…

          Do I have to rewrite the entire essay?

        • dungone

          So what? What exactly do these statements tell us? What exactly should we change about law, order, or culture, or anything, at all, if we concede every last element of what you are saying?

          You stop treating the men and women in the 99% as though the women were being discriminated against by the men/

  • Andybob

    Gina Rippon, Professor of Cognitive Neuroimaging at Ashton University in Birmingham, blames Barbie, that notorious plastic shill of the patriarchy, for keeping women out of the 1%

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576241/Men-NOT-Mars-Scientist-claims-male-female-brains-gender-stereotyping-makes-different.html

    In an article in the Daily Mail on 8/3/14 titled, “Men are NOT from Mars after all: Scientist claims male and female brains are the same and it’s gender stereotyping which makes us different,” Professor Rippon opines that there is no scientific
    evidence to suggest that male and female brains are wired differently. She believes that “our brains are changed by the roles society forces us to play”. It seems that the toys we are given create gender differences in the brain.

    “By playing with a Barbie rather than a train, for example, a girl’s brain is
    programmed to become more feminine.”

    The professor’s gift to the sisterhood on International Woman’s Day was to reassure
    them that, contrary to what researchers at the University of Pennsylvania recently
    discovered about the different wiring of the male and female brain, our brains are in fact, the same, but have been exercised to respond to different gender expectations.

    Feminists are being surrounded by mounting evidence that their fatuous claim that people are nothing more than social constructs engineered by the patriarchy is a
    heaving pile of bullshit. Their dogmatic determination to continue making these claims anyway simply isn’t working like it used to – check out the comments section on the article.

    Now they’re blaming Barbie, whose bosomy docility has always irked them. Feminists have no shame. Outsanding article, Mr Impelluso. I moved one step closer to the 1% just by reading it.

    • Bewildered

      WTF! Looks like ideology trumps everything. What are they going to come up with next?
      Their brazenness is astounding.Where are the peers to counteract this BS ?

      • impelluso

        It cannot be countered: it is systemic.

        This is how it works…

        Observation: B happens and B is not good for women

        Feminist: We have research to show that A causes B.

        Common sense and science: No, A does cause B.

        Feminist: that may be true, but the culture of B induces an effect that might “mimic” A and cause B. Therefore, we still blame A because we cannot deal with reality.

        So, in this case, men have wiring in the brain attuded to math. So the logical femiist response is that the cuture of sexism mimics nature and undermines the wiring in women.

        And, I am sorry to say, it is systemic. It is very hard to stop this. The feminists created a language to blame men for things. It is the nature of symbols and semiotics. Then, slowly, this false language is reduced to paragraphs without references and then to phrases, and the phrases to words and words to symbols. And eventually, just the image of a naked man on the campus of Wellesley is enough to cause rape hysteria.

        • Bewildered

          LMFAO! so the links in your post are humbug,according to Gina Rippon !
          I think it was GWW who in one of her videos said that Britain has now become a matriarchy.
          The ease with which this woman has been able to spout her drivel reinforces her point.
          Even the hardest of sciences can be softened by the vagina.
          Such is its power !

    • Aimee McGee

      Ok, I’m now certain my brain is male. Hated Barbie with a passion.
      Oh…apparently my mother and sisters role modelled it…WTF?

      • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

        No dear. You’re not male–just cursed with courage and individuality–that really pisses off the herd which is herded easily by fear. Trust me on this, courage and individuality *ages* a whole lot better than fear and plastic. Boy oh boy will your sisters be pissed.

        • Aimee McGee

          The irony is no woman in my family is traditionally feminine…My young adult nieces have a terrible time trying to break out of the coping, resourceful, intelligent role they’ve been modelled between the ages of 18 and 25, then they cut their hair, put away the high heels and get on with being sane and rational human beings :)

    • Deka Make

      Gina Rippon hasn’t heard (maybe purposely) of the Reimer case.

    • Deka Make

      Gina Rippon hasn’t heard (maybe purposely) of the Reimer case.

      • Bewildered

        Listening isn’t her strong point. Feminists can hear only the sound of their own voices.

    • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

      Nature vs. Nurture is an eternal debate. In my abstraction they are both correct and that one is superior depending on an infinite number of factors at an infinitely precise moment in time within an infinitely precise coordinate, changing polarity at a frequency beyond the capacity of humans to comprehend, like two universes swirling within and without each other, or the Yin/Yang symbol. But what do I know?

      • Bewildered

        Nature vs. Nurture is an eternal debate.

        ALA there are gullible sheeple in this world lapping up BS from overweening ideologues {”I have what you would call a theoretical basis. There is no room for biology in there for me.” ! WTF!} this debate is not going to end.
        More than anything else all this nonsense symbolizes a general human reluctance to accept inconvenient truths and that scientific temper is not as common as believed,no matter which part of the world you come from — the 1st world or the 100th world, no real difference.[The leader of the so called first world still teaches creationism as science in schools and deems evolution theory as a mere theory. Mr. Ripley are you listening?]

        http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=10796

        • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

          Must be nice to be binary. Makes it easier to know which line to stand in.

          • Bewildered

            If you are hell-bent on staying on a particular side[like politicians,ideologues and other assorted anti-human entities] then yes ! you are right.Natural human inertia keeps people stuck in their comfort zones.

            But if your natural sense of wonder has not been fucked up by indoctrination and other forms of mind control then you don’t really need to be on any side if your intent is genuine learning and not playing dirty politics.

            BTW “Gender is not a social construct” # “Gender is a biological construct”

            I am sure I don’t have to spell out why feminists in particular are tabula rasa maniacs !

          • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

            Two people free of bias who know everything who therefore read into my statement an argument that isn’t there.

          • Sulla

            Being a fence sitter is not a good trait.

            Studies have shown that newborn infants have different playing habits.

            The nature vs nurture debate is over, the nature side has won.

  • Roby 83

    The link to the last reference is broken.

    By the way, it is not just math. In all field at the very top level men outnumber women: physics, music literature, cooking, painting, biology, poetry, sculpture. Charles Murray found that 98% of human progress is due to men (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment). Reality is sexist.

    • impelluso

      There is no link. But I have a copy of the paper (if the moderators are willing, I can email it and you can post it)

  • Bewildered

    FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE{ one of my heros heroines btw} seems to agree with you !

    …..Now if I were to write a book out of my experience, I should begin Women have no sympathy. Yours is the tradition. Mine is the conviction of experience…..

    …Women crave for being loved, not for loving.
    They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of
    giving any in return, for they cannot remember your affairs long enough
    to do so…They cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that
    other attend to it accurately enough for it to become information. Now
    is not all this the result of want of sympathy?

    I am sick with indignation at what wives and mothers will do of the
    most egregious selfishness. And people call it all maternal or conjugal
    affection, and think it pretty to say so. No, no, let each person tell
    the truth from his own experience.”

  • Graham Strouse

    I’m not too worried about the top 1%. Geniuses tend to find success no matter what you throw at them. Unless they’re burned for heresy or witchcraft of course. It’s the top 10-20% we need to be concerned about. Turning regular-ish people off on the sciences at an early age can have a profound negative impact on society, not just when it comes to competitiveness but when it comes to basic literacy. Scientifically illiterate people do so much damage to societies, particularly when they find themselves in positions of power.

  • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

    I can’t believe that so-called men are going to let women (ultimately it is they who are behind this control scheme) tell us males how to pee. If this isn’t penis envy, then….

    On a more serious note, it is this male spatial skill that is spoken so eloquently and truthfully about in this piece that evokes the most envy from women. Evolution has carved out too distinct sexes that are meant to compliment each other, both having strengths and weaknesses, but that coupled together make our species what it is and which should remain untouched by anyone’s particular subjectivity.

    Can anyone imagine other species, from ants and bees to fish and fowl, if individuals within those species wanted to go tangential to the rules that are best for its species, the fate of such species would be dim. We humans think we can get by with tampering with objective natural truths and tinkering with our institutions but there will come a time when our ability to “shift gears”, assimilate, obscure, etc will no longer circumvent the obvious and inevitable perilous doom of our and any species that decides to let opinions, feelings, and other forms of irrational subjectivity infiltrate, indoctrinate, and pollute our commonsense to the point of the insanity we now find normal.

    Either the MHRM has impact or it is just a matter of time. Thankfully, I have no kids to leave behind (and worry over) in a world that will yield what should constitute child abuse.

    Progressives are “chaosists”…and they are too oblivious to even know it. .