In a niftily presented staging of his points, Pinker keeps the tone of his beech calm, calculated with an efficient humorous demeanor to give a comic relief to the otherwise statistical and somber topic. At once personal and at one calmly detached, Pinker goes through to explain the statistically backed up information regarding the poor show of the woman in the mathematical and scientific arenas. He starts off with a datum of the percentage of women in a specific field, the numbers were as follows: Mathematics - 8. 3%, Chemistry - 12. 1%, Chemical Engineering - 10. 5%, Physics - 6. 6%, Mechanical Engineering - 6. %, Electrical Engineering - 6. %, Civil engineering - 9. 5%, Computer Science - 10. 6%, Astronomy- 12. 6% With a dismal show in the technical and scientific domains, Women went on to analyze the data backed by several explanations, scientific, sociological and biological. According to Pinker the reading of the statistic in hand can be done in several ways, one being the extreme "nature" position where the discarding of the women is done on the basis that women "lack the temperament for science" and the other being the extreme "nurture" position where every biological difference is meted out to be indistinguishable.
Then what is the stance that Pinker is taking, it's the considerately named "intermediate" position where he says "that the difference is explainable by some combination of biological differences in average temperaments and talents interacting with solicitation and bias". Pinker himself admits the nature position of being a degraded and an "extreme" debasing thought and the nurture stance being too naive a statement. Then it is in fact self evident that the intermediate stance that is considered to be a considerate view on the things is in fact at least halfway grading and insulting.
The very fact that there are so many stances to explain a simple statistic puts the situation in an extreme quandary. If the facts of the lacuna of the feminine temperament lie so bare then what is the reason of so many stances and arguments to prove a point. Taken in consideration the biological aspects of it, if the "differences" in cognitive abilities that Pinker talks about are indeed real, then essentially every women that figures in the scientific studies is then a deviant.
Is it not then a subtle normalization and extrapolating of women from a mainstream lied of study itself when you deem her cognition to be McCollum in way different than a man? Pointing out and carving out an area of the study to substantiate the "difference" of women in itself then is an extreme nature of chauvinism. Yes Pinker is correct in highlighting that men and women are distinguished and distinct in their corporal self, but no science claims that they are indeed indistinguishable when it comes to their potential of capability and aptitude.
No, it's not about "preserving the Ideal" or ten trust Dealing "sexist". Its actually reviewing ten salad "trust", a trust so intrinsically rooted in the core of people's minds that they would rather follow it than question it. The truth being the utter predisposition of men when it comes to attaching a macho and masculine image to the scientific disciplines and their severe need to make this blue blooded domain of study an exclusive male-only zone.
With so much reference of masculinity and thus irrevocably power too, attached to the order of the subjects, it is then obviously a terrain which is an anchor of security in the matters of prestige and power for the man. This phenomenon is easier understood wrought an analogy of the elite sporting leagues of the world being dominated by the men. It is cited that women are not physically adept enough to cope up with the man is the universally accepted reason. Women thus have formed a different world of sport for themselves and the testosterone fuelled race continues in a different and evidently superior paradigm.
However in the field of academia, we can't postulate a different world of Physics or Chemistry and hence the credible women entering the field has to put up with the innumerable prejudices and misgivings owing to the universally accepted and a scientifically backed up logic again, a little twisted though to comfort the feminine ideology - she is after all McCollum for the "softer" things like humanities. Thus substantially sidetracking the women and subserviently treating an academic discipline.
Had the humanities dominated being the manlier and served as the more powerful structure in societal framework now, it is pretty debatable that the argument would have been reversed and the men would have been deemed finer enough to understand the humanities and women being McCollum to do the more racial of things backed by science and technology. Descriptively analyzing the cognitive capability of the women and deeming them stuck somewhere in the middle is once again limiting them in a restricted zone.
Observations like "men are better at throwing, but women are more dexterous. Men are better at mentally rotating shapes; women are better at visual memory. Men are better at mathematical problem-solving; women are better at mathematical calculation" are seriously limiting in their conceptualization. If the ability of the man under such tight fitted disgorges, where is the scope for innovation and risk? It's a human fault to be looking or rather seeing things exactly in the manner they wish it to be.
Inadvertently then the observations are all keeping in with the idea that men are vitally "different" in their structure than a woman. Disregarding even that fact, it is statistically impossible to come to close to perfect figure discerning a gender's capability. Domestication and motherhood has long been the tombstone around the female kind, Pinkie's observation limits itself to it too when it ascertains that women in fact themselves ant domesticity above everything else also interestingly attaching the word "meaningful" to it.
Leaving aside the "less meaningful" aspect of carving a good career for herself which is better left to the men. The kind referral of women being better at spatial ability is thus nothing than a subtle form of limiting her to a yet another zone. A very important reference that comes to the forming the identity of the baby girl are things like the pink color and emphasis on dolls and counter to that the emphasis on the giving of toy cars and toy weapons to baby boys.
Speaking room a personal point of view, I believe it is the parent or the guardian who decides the toy that the kid wants to play with and thus logically it is them who dictate the sconce AT toy, IT toneless someone suggests a camerawoman detect ascertaining ten female's choice parentally!. The dysfunction runs deep in the mindsets and the poor show of the women in the scientific arena is a result of it, other than scientifically backing the skewed ratio, one should come ahead in enriching the academia with the feminine take on science. After all isn't science all about striving for a better result?