In this post we have: namedropping (twice, paired with etc[?]) with no actual citations, a definitive blanket statement that x when compared to y is false, when x and y are quite a bit more complicated than that, "just trust me" as reinforcement for an argument and, most offensive of all, someone suggesting that Maslow's hierarchy of needs might possibly be valuable in an argument.
It's best to define what you're talking about when you start talking. I also don't know what you're saying about Lit/Engineering. I'd also disagree with you that there's no prejudice against men for going into Lit, or in general enjoying plays, singing, dancing, or any number of more typically "feminine" things.
Instead of flaunting your tact abilities to see how an argument was constructed, why don't you just constructively work so we can both find the truth? Also, get over yourself with your 'offensive' remark.
You are right in that there is some social prejudice against men who go into literature. But how did this social prejudice come about? I just think far too much is placed on 'social construct' rather than inherent differences. Of course, it is not right to prejudice against anyone and that is a Neanderthal's approach, but it exists because men have a natural disinterest in reading, writing and singing when compared with women. Now the result of this, is that even without any prejudice, strictly off the fact that there is a disinterest, that men will not be as equally represented in reading, writing and singing as women in university classes.
The same line of reasoning is used to show that women won't go into the maths professions, because they simply don't like it, yes the effect is exaggerated due to social forces, but as I've demonstrated before, they will always be under-represented.
Firstly, it is a crying shame that women who want to be engineers and men who want to be authors don't do so because of prejudice. But the second and more generalised thing we need to consider is the social implications of this. That is to say, that given the current economic climate, men are going to out earn women if we continue with traditional models of pay. Just as we see in your tennis example. As a result of this, there will be an organic patriarchal society, that is to say, a society where men hold the power.
The tennis example cited is perfect. If we have men and women, we should say, 'OK, we don't care whether you are a man, or whether you are a woman, or fairness for work or these things, what we care about is the principles of social equality, a priori' and from here, we create something that is balanced and not patriarchal.
You are working at too 'high' a level for me to have meaningful conclusions. You are saying that men and women have prejudices to go into certain fields, well, I would very much agree that this is definitely true. But I will go and ask, 'Why do these prejudices exist and how did they come to exist?' I don't think you are finding the root of the problem and in your efforts, you will simply create new problems where women are not 'equal' in society to men.
Most of the commonly cited explanations for a patriarchal society that I hear such as religious and so forth, I just find them to be quite speculative.
As I have said earlier, your tennis example was a perfect one indeed.
Home
Help
Search
Login
