Female traffic lights

[Joseph41]

I used to think this as well! Until I was about...16 I think, I actively rejected feminism as "annoying." I literally just had know idea about it. But, until early 2016 I had the same thoughts as you stawze on the STEM/socialising issue, until I actively started researching it, and then I did a Journalism assignment where I interviewed a really broad range of people. I started to see a lot of disparity in the way parents actually influence children's decisions like that. Then I did a Social and Political Science assignment, more interviews, and the anecdotal evidence coloured in the black and white research overwhelmingly.

But, social conditioning goes far beyond the influence of parents. I really want to link to something good online about this, but I can't find things that aren't on my Uni drive. Maybe someone else will be able to share a good reading, if anyone has one.

I wrote in 2015 a paper on women in medical school and STEM education leading up to it, so I have about a million academic articles relevant to this haha. I mean, I guess this is an okayish place to start, but I highly recommend reading on the leaky mathematical pipeline analogy. Like this.

EDIT: For clarity, I'm very happy to provide the details of those articles to those interested.

[jamonwindeyer]

I find it very hard to believe that a woman may be 'conditioned' to reject STEM careers in favour of others. A parent of a daughter with an interest in STEM would not dissuade her from perusing it in this day and age. I believe women have agency, and will choose to go into STEM if they are passionate about it. I think we see less women going to STEM simply because less women are interested.

I have no problem encouraging women and girls to explore STEM, the same with encouraging men and boys. I strongly disagree with giving women an advantage over men in hiring, scholarships, etc. There should be equality of opportunity, but that should not ensure equality of outcome.

EDIT: Double posted, oops.

I don't have readings unfortunately (I don't do much reading on feminism, but I sure would take it over some of the stuff on electromagnetism I've got right now, lol) but I have seen quite a few people, statistically significant in the sample size that forms my friends and acquaintances, where women have experienced an influence that tends away from STEM, the corporate world, etc. In most cases it is from the parents. So I suppose to answer the question, yeah, I have seen women (subconsciously, and sometimes even directly) discouraged from entering the STEM fields by their parents, extended family or family culture

As to inequality in initial STEM education - I know for a fact there is underrepresentation. Statistics show it for higher education, but I don't need that - I just need to walk into my lecture theatre to see it. In my secondary education, there were no females in the graduating HSC Physics class, nor the graduating Extension Mathematics class. I think only a single female Chemistry student out of nearly 20. In my Year 10 Mathematics class, probably a 5:1 Male Female Ratio. And I can't remember further back than that - But yeah, underrepresentation is (I believe) irrefutable.

Does this represent inequality in treatment? Well I think it is evidence of the fact. You don't have those sorts of figures if everyone is treated the same from day one. If you respond with the fact that women are less interested, then the question becomes why. If women and men are both treated completely equally from day one, why is it so lopsided?

[Joseph41]

The problem with being "more inclusive, intersectional, accepting of the way that class, race, language, and gender binaries all contribute" is what do you tell someone when they plead you to believe that 67 genders do actually exist?
That may sound blunt, but I really think we've got to be stricter on reality...

To be equally blunt, your reality may not be the same as another's. And if they identify as a gender that you don't consider to be a gender, well, that doesn't mean that the gender doesn't exist.

[jamonwindeyer]

I wrote in 2015 a paper on women in medical school and STEM education leading up to it, so I have about a million academic articles relevant to this haha. I mean, I guess this is an okayish place to start, but I highly recommend reading on the leaky mathematical pipeline analogy. Like this.

This looks like a genuinely interesting read - Cheers mate 

[stawze]

In regards specifically to the traffic light debate, from what I'm reading, it isn't going to exactly be some crazy, huge, expensive change. The way that they are going to introduce these new traffic lights are going to be during regular maintenance and replacement times, so nothing really is going to change except maybe a few pixels will be added to create a triangle dress (the dress thing is maybe the only thing that irks me - clothing doesn't have a gender). I may be wrong about this point, but here are my two cents

That's why I think it's a pointless change. It isn't going to change anything, a vast majority of people won't care.

[alchemy]

To be equally blunt, your reality may not be the same as another's. And if they identify as a gender that you don't consider to be a gender, well, that doesn't mean that the gender doesn't exist.

that is not my opinion, it is a fact that 67 genders don't exist.

[Coffee]

Regarding children (and girls, in particular) in STEM education, I wanted to share this video which I found interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5crr9tGlac

You don't have to watch it all, I'm focusing more on the ad here.

Also regarding the cost of the female traffic lights, according to the ABC, it costs an average $8,400 to change six traffic lights and the program has been funded by the Committee for Melbourne and Bayswater company Camlex Electrical. Taxpayer money had not gone into the initiative. Link here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/female-traffic-light-signals-melbourne-pedestrian-crossing/8330560

[elysepopplewell]

The problem with being "more inclusive, intersectional, accepting of the way that class, race, language, and gender binaries all contribute" is what do you tell someone when they plead you to believe that 67 genders do actually exist?
That may sound blunt, but I really think we've got to be stricter on reality and be less politically correct (which is what I wanted to discuss in the first place)
Speaking of which this just popped up on my newsfeed: http://imgur.com/a/16wE0 

edit: updated link, would like to hear your thoughts on that pic elyse

The sign is also making gender assumptions - the sexist assumption that women will be doing the child-rearing. Although, given the significant more amount of unpaid work women do, child-rearing is likely to come under that so it's not a sign that's ignorant of the reality that women are more likely to be doing school drop off/pick up, it's a sign that re-enforces the assumption that we should be challenging. I agree it's a sexist sign.
I saw the caption on the Facebook post, "Oh that's right, only females can be victims!" which I think is a really unconstructive and untrue thing to say and really discredits him in my opinion lol.

As for the 67 genders - let there be 67 genders! If someone came up to me and said there are 67 genders, as you suggested for the scenario, I wouldn't have any difficulty with the conflict between my intersectional feminism and their view of gender. I don't mind, doesn't threaten me But being completely transparent, I know the least about gender binaries out of all the intersectional feminist aspects, it's my weakest point. My feminism is flawed but I'm actively trying to engage with it more.

That's why I think it's a pointless change. It isn't going to change anything, a vast majority of people won't care.

It seems to me that a majority of people are bothered, but this could just be my perspective based on the circles I'm in. I empathise with because of all the changes that could be made - why this? But as I suggested way back in my original post, perhaps it gets people thinking about gender representation - which is definitely not pointless and super valuable.

[sudodds]

That's why I think it's a pointless change. It isn't going to change anything, a vast majority of people won't care.

I agree that I don't think it's exactly the most important thing in the world (though Elyse does raise some really interesting points!), at least in comparison to other issues, both feminist and not. However, the thing is that a lot of people do seem to care, given the vast amount of hate this new decision has received, when really their lives will remain pretty much completely unaffected. Nothing bad is going to come from this new decision, thus I find the pretty intense (not necessarily from this thread, moreso my facebook feed...) hatred for this a little bit of an overkill.

[stawze]

I don't have readings unfortunately (I don't do much reading on feminism, but I sure would take it over some of the stuff on electromagnetism I've got right now, lol) but I have seen quite a few people, statistically significant in the sample size that forms my friends and acquaintances, where women have experienced an influence that tends away from STEM, the corporate world, etc. In most cases it is from the parents. So I suppose to answer the question, yeah, I have seen women (subconsciously, and sometimes even directly) discouraged from entering the STEM fields by their parents, extended family or family culture

As to inequality in initial STEM education - I know for a fact there is underrepresentation. Statistics show it for higher education, but I don't need that - I just need to walk into my lecture theatre to see it. In my secondary education, there were no females in the graduating HSC Physics class, nor the graduating Extension Mathematics class. I think only a single female Chemistry student out of nearly 20. In my Year 10 Mathematics class, probably a 5:1 Male Female Ratio. And I can't remember further back than that - But yeah, underrepresentation is (I believe) irrefutable.

Does this represent inequality in treatment? Well I think it is evidence of the fact. You don't have those sorts of figures if everyone is treated the same from day one. If you respond with the fact that women are less interested, then the question becomes why. If women and men are both treated completely equally from day one, why is it so lopsided?

I guess where I differ the most in opinion from others is - given equal opportunity, there will be female underrepresentation in STEM subjects due to neurological differences between the average male and female brain. I haven't done extensive research on the subject, so I could be totally wrong.

[elysepopplewell]

I think it's a little bit far fetched to say that these achievements haven't been celebrated, moreso that their achievements just haven't been attributed to the entire male gender.

Love your contributions and agree to all you said.

WHO SAID THE HSC ISN'T RELEVANT AFTER EXAMS HUH

[jamonwindeyer]

Also regarding the cost of the female traffic lights, according to the ABC, it costs an average $8,400 to change six traffic lights and the program has been funded by the Committee for Melbourne and Bayswater company Camlex Electrical. Taxpayer money had not gone into the initiative. Link here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/female-traffic-light-signals-melbourne-pedestrian-crossing/8330560

Riiiight, thanks for sharing that Coffee!! If this is a project funded by the private dollar, then without opening the "Should women be represented as stick figures with dresses" debate, I think that shuts down most of the opposition I've been seeing, which has pretty much been, "What a waste of time and money." I absolutely think there are way more important things going on in the world right now, but why be against it if it has a positive impact? I don't think there'd be any negative impacts of doing it

[alchemy]

As for the 67 genders - let there be 67 genders! If someone came up to me and said there are 67 genders, as you suggested for the scenario, I wouldn't have any difficulty with the conflict between my intersectional feminism and their view of gender. I don't mind, doesn't threaten me

Surely this is absurd. While 67 genders, or how ever many one wants it to be, might make an excellent creative writing piece imagine the chaos which would ensue when it comes to lawmaking and the future of human policy.

[Joseph41]

Surely this is absurd. While 67 genders, or how ever many one wants it to be, might make an excellent creative writing piece imagine the chaos which would ensue when it comes to lawmaking and the future of human policy.

How many genders do you perceive there to be, alchemy?

[elysepopplewell]

Surely this is absurd. While 67 genders, or how ever many one wants it to be, might make an excellent creative writing piece imagine the chaos which would ensue when it comes to lawmaking and the future of human policy.

You asked me how it conflicts with my feminism - it doesn't. If someone believes there's 67 genders I'd take that over someone who believes he can grab women by the pussy because he's famous. 67 genders is far less problematic for my feminism.