Person 1: I've just measured a thousand men and women. I've found that men are typically taller than women. This is because our society systematically underfeeds infant girls so they don't grow to be as tall as their male counterparts.
Person 2: That's horrible! Is there any evidence of this systematic underfeeding?
P1: None at all.
P2: But, society at large tacitly endorses the practice of underfeeding young girls?
P1: Not at all. In fact, it would be a horrible scandal and a severe and rare crime if anyone were found to be intentionally depriving an infant girl of nutrition.
P2: So... why do you think this is the explanation for height differences?
P1: Well, it would explain my results in a way that accords with my political beliefs.
Your argument seems similar to Person One's argument. There just is no evidence that we are not educating girls fairly in science or any other domain. As I've previously referenced girls outperform boys in science (as well as every other subject) and have for the last century. It would, in fact, be a huge scandal if some school system were found to be educating girls differently.
You are pointing at these really small things, like commercials targeting toys to boys versus girls. You assume that these small things cause major changes (as opposed to companies targeting their commercials where they find they get the best return). You ignore giant influences like the education system which does a better job educating young girls in science and math than boys.
> Is there any evidence of this systematic underfeeding?
I provided evidence that our cultural ideas of what careers are and aren't masculine impacts women's interests in terms of career path. You provided no evidence that interests are a product of sexed brain chemistry. Your height analogy makes no sense and doesn't match up to our discussion.
> There just is no evidence that we are not educating girls fairly in science or any other domain.
I never argued that schools discriminate against women by offering them a worse education in those areas. I argued that our culture encourages certain interests above others in boys and girls by gendering those interests. Consider the example I linked, where the number of women pursuing careers in computer science fell precipitously after messing with computers became coded as a "boy hobby."
> You ignore giant influences like the education system which does a better job educating young girls in science and math than boys.
Girls get higher marks than boys in every subject, and the discrepancy is actually less pronounced in STEM fields [1]. But this is really irrelevant to our discussion.
Person 2: That's horrible! Is there any evidence of this systematic underfeeding?
P1: None at all.
P2: But, society at large tacitly endorses the practice of underfeeding young girls?
P1: Not at all. In fact, it would be a horrible scandal and a severe and rare crime if anyone were found to be intentionally depriving an infant girl of nutrition.
P2: So... why do you think this is the explanation for height differences?
P1: Well, it would explain my results in a way that accords with my political beliefs.
Your argument seems similar to Person One's argument. There just is no evidence that we are not educating girls fairly in science or any other domain. As I've previously referenced girls outperform boys in science (as well as every other subject) and have for the last century. It would, in fact, be a huge scandal if some school system were found to be educating girls differently.
You are pointing at these really small things, like commercials targeting toys to boys versus girls. You assume that these small things cause major changes (as opposed to companies targeting their commercials where they find they get the best return). You ignore giant influences like the education system which does a better job educating young girls in science and math than boys.