Is that … a bad thing? I am missing something, did he take the number from somewhere or you gave it to him?
But otherwise calling someone and asking out is a pretty harmless thing to do.
Not when it was a number used once to arrange a group project meeting and that we had not connected otherwise? Two years later - I had dropped out?
One thing I noticed as in my progress through as STEM major was the decline in number of female classmates. Calc 3 might have a reasonable number, but the drop off was exponential. The college run that got me through was done as a man, so I didn’t experience the stuff but I heard rumors. Worse than rumors from post docs in the lab I worked in.
Yep, if the number was not given specifically to connect that is what makes it inappropriate for me.
But overall, an invite to a date besides being old fashioned is not necessarily creepy, even after long time.
Of course, I don’t know if there were additional clues that made the whole thing creepy (tone of voice, phrasing etc.).
I studied computer engineering in Italy, and I can relate with the number of women being very low. I think there were maybe <10 women in the whole class on a ~60 people total after the first semester (starting with 250 people). Most of them were top of the class, which to me always suggested that while many men signed up and then “see how it goes”, only women who knew exactly what they wanted signed up.
It’s how women have to be excellent to make a male dominated thing a part of their life. It starts long before uni so you’re seeing it after other women have been knocked down and out of it.
Tbh, in Italy there is no much “before university” in terms of “being excellent”. The admission test was extremely easy, with a very high number of admitted students and on topics that are common to all high schools (we have a completely different school system in Italy). In fact, the vast majority of people in my class never studied those topics in high school. Also university costs were low (from 0 to ~2k/year depending on family income).
But I think that a mix of stereotypes (I.e. gender stereotypes), peer pressure (do you want to go study in a class 90% men) and other social issues definitely discourage all but the most motivated women to join, which is a shame.
The same exact thing applies to many other faculties of course. Psychology and “educational sciences” (literal translation) are basically just women (at least in Italy), which is exactly the same phenomenon.
Before university = the whole life lived as a girl before university is even in it. The whole time being held to a different standard, encouraged one way, discouraged another way, etc etc. Any interest or persuasion being dismantled and/or dismissed for decades before uni.
But what you are saying doesn’t match much the data (at least in Italy).
In Italy females consistently get higher grades than miles, in all levels of school, and they do that from other women teachers (including STEM subjects).
How this matches “being held to a different standard”, for example?
They are the vast majority of schools in humanities (languages, classical studies, etc.) and all “licei” (=high schools created with the purpose of forming the ruling class back in 1920s) and they are the minority only in technical schools (which are generally lower quality schools more oriented toward professions than university) and in the scientific high school.
This also doesn’t seem to suggest any encouragement or discouragement in one direction or another, BUT it does match perfectly the culturally rigid gender stereotypes about women being more creative and fitting roles of care.
Also worth noting that women attend university in a higher % (56%) compared to men (also a result of gender stereotypes IMHO) and with higher grades on average. They are also the majority of PhD students (59%).
So my question I guess would be: why medicine and psychology are mostly and overwhelmingly women faculties, while engineering etc. are the opposite?
any interest or persuasion being dismantled and/or dismissed for decades before uni.
I wouldn’t say “any”, but I would absolutely say that interests in fields that are traditionally male-dominated are discouraged for women and viceversa (I have written in another comment, the imbalance in educational science is even higher than the one in engineering).
So I do see gender roles, I do see cultural influences about what is " for men" and “for women”, I don’t see the different standard women are held up to.
im sorry, i want to answer you but you need to rewrite that whole mess, it’s intolerably difficult to read (unless you’re really just tellin a woman “this unrelated data doesn’t match your life experience”).
that would be comically stupid and sexist, and proving OP right!
I must be missing something. Maybe you’re doing a bit of satire? Embracing the stereotype of “italians=super-sexist”?
naw. I gotta be reading it wrong.
please rewrite this in italian so i can see the nuance lost in the translation
unless you’re really just tellin a woman “this unrelated data doesn’t match your life experience”
I am saying that the very relevant data (ironically, gathered as part of the respect-stop violence project) indeed doesn’t match that lived experience.
Which means that perhaps that experience cannot be generalized?
If someone claims that women are held to a higher standard, I think asking “how is it possible that on average, at all levels, they get higher grades and they are the majority of students?” is a fair question.
The hypothesis that women are held to a higher standard in this context would imply the obvious conclusion that only the “best” would make it, which is in direct opposition with the data that women are a substantial majority of students everywhere.
On the other hand I perfectly acknowledged that gender stereotypes exist and these do explain both sides of the equation that I presented with “unrelated data”: they explain both having a mere 13% of females in IT faculties and having 8% of males in education faculties. The same exact dynamic applies to males and females, which both - due to peer pressure, and fixed gender roles - end up being discouraged to pursue certain careers.
If “women get discouraged their whole life” was a generally valid statement, then asking “why then they are the majority of medicine students, a faculty with the toughest admission exam, a scientific faculty and also a long and hard one - 11 years in total” is also a valid question in my opinion.
So yeah, despite what you might think, while I have no interest to debate or invalidate one’s experience, maybe this cannot be generalized if there are quite glaring issues with statistical data.
Why would you consider data about gender distribution in the education sector in Italy irrelevant in the context of gender dynamics in education (in Italy, since that’s what my comment discussed), is a mystery to me. It’s even more of a mystery considering that that very same data was gathered specifically within the contest of a project about women equality.
Dunja Mijatovic, commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, faulted Italy across multiple areas, lamenting that Italian courts and police sometimes revictimize the victims of gender-based violence and that women have increasingly less access to abortion services. She also noted Italy’s last-place in the EU ranking for gender equality in the workplace.
Most of them were top of the class, which to me always suggested that while many men signed up and then “see how it goes”, only women who knew exactly what they wanted signed up.
Can you draw connections between what I linked/emphasized and this statement?
It’s quite hard to make connections between statements about adult society (I.e. workplace, reproductive rights) and what happens in teenagers in a completely shielded (and tbh, fairly inclusive) environment like schools (mostly, high school as that’s when people decide to sign up in university). Actually, possibly what happens even earlier, as many people who go to STEM faculties in university come from the “scientific high school” which is the only “liceo” where males are more than females.
On average females earn also higher grades, in all levels of school (which is why I don’t find solid the argument that women have to abide higher standard of excellence in this context).
So all this to say, I definitely think there is a cultural issue that pushes women away from STEM subjects (a phenomenon quite common in all the West), but I don’t think is what my interlocutor suggested - that is another expression of women having to meet higher standards. This wouldn’t explain the corresponding imbalance in other areas.
To make an example: 91.8% of students in teaching sciences are females. 87% of students in computer science are males.
I would say that culture stereotypes and fixed gender roles are responsible for both, and instead this idea of “higher standards” seems fuzzy and explains only one side of the equation.
Curious also to note that women are absolutely the vast majority of teachers in kindergarten (99.3%!), primary school (97%), secondary school (77%) and high school (65%). While women are perfectly capable of reproducing gender oppression, it’s also fair to assume that there are plenty of women role models in STEM subjects.
Anyway, besides this long thing, I can’t find solid connections between what you posted and the topic, can you maybe elaborate your point?
Is that … a bad thing? I am missing something, did he take the number from somewhere or you gave it to him? But otherwise calling someone and asking out is a pretty harmless thing to do.
Not when it was a number used once to arrange a group project meeting and that we had not connected otherwise? Two years later - I had dropped out?
One thing I noticed as in my progress through as STEM major was the decline in number of female classmates. Calc 3 might have a reasonable number, but the drop off was exponential. The college run that got me through was done as a man, so I didn’t experience the stuff but I heard rumors. Worse than rumors from post docs in the lab I worked in.
Yep, if the number was not given specifically to connect that is what makes it inappropriate for me. But overall, an invite to a date besides being old fashioned is not necessarily creepy, even after long time. Of course, I don’t know if there were additional clues that made the whole thing creepy (tone of voice, phrasing etc.).
I studied computer engineering in Italy, and I can relate with the number of women being very low. I think there were maybe <10 women in the whole class on a ~60 people total after the first semester (starting with 250 people). Most of them were top of the class, which to me always suggested that while many men signed up and then “see how it goes”, only women who knew exactly what they wanted signed up.
It’s how women have to be excellent to make a male dominated thing a part of their life. It starts long before uni so you’re seeing it after other women have been knocked down and out of it.
Tbh, in Italy there is no much “before university” in terms of “being excellent”. The admission test was extremely easy, with a very high number of admitted students and on topics that are common to all high schools (we have a completely different school system in Italy). In fact, the vast majority of people in my class never studied those topics in high school. Also university costs were low (from 0 to ~2k/year depending on family income).
But I think that a mix of stereotypes (I.e. gender stereotypes), peer pressure (do you want to go study in a class 90% men) and other social issues definitely discourage all but the most motivated women to join, which is a shame.
The same exact thing applies to many other faculties of course. Psychology and “educational sciences” (literal translation) are basically just women (at least in Italy), which is exactly the same phenomenon.
Before university = the whole life lived as a girl before university is even in it. The whole time being held to a different standard, encouraged one way, discouraged another way, etc etc. Any interest or persuasion being dismantled and/or dismissed for decades before uni.
But what you are saying doesn’t match much the data (at least in Italy). In Italy females consistently get higher grades than miles, in all levels of school, and they do that from other women teachers (including STEM subjects).
How this matches “being held to a different standard”, for example?
They are the vast majority of schools in humanities (languages, classical studies, etc.) and all “licei” (=high schools created with the purpose of forming the ruling class back in 1920s) and they are the minority only in technical schools (which are generally lower quality schools more oriented toward professions than university) and in the scientific high school.
This also doesn’t seem to suggest any encouragement or discouragement in one direction or another, BUT it does match perfectly the culturally rigid gender stereotypes about women being more creative and fitting roles of care.
Also worth noting that women attend university in a higher % (56%) compared to men (also a result of gender stereotypes IMHO) and with higher grades on average. They are also the majority of PhD students (59%).
So my question I guess would be: why medicine and psychology are mostly and overwhelmingly women faculties, while engineering etc. are the opposite?
I wouldn’t say “any”, but I would absolutely say that interests in fields that are traditionally male-dominated are discouraged for women and viceversa (I have written in another comment, the imbalance in educational science is even higher than the one in engineering).
So I do see gender roles, I do see cultural influences about what is " for men" and “for women”, I don’t see the different standard women are held up to.
im sorry, i want to answer you but you need to rewrite that whole mess, it’s intolerably difficult to read (unless you’re really just tellin a woman “this unrelated data doesn’t match your life experience”).
that would be comically stupid and sexist, and proving OP right!
I must be missing something. Maybe you’re doing a bit of satire? Embracing the stereotype of “italians=super-sexist”?
naw. I gotta be reading it wrong.
please rewrite this in italian so i can see the nuance lost in the translation
I am saying that the very relevant data (ironically, gathered as part of the respect-stop violence project) indeed doesn’t match that lived experience. Which means that perhaps that experience cannot be generalized?
If someone claims that women are held to a higher standard, I think asking “how is it possible that on average, at all levels, they get higher grades and they are the majority of students?” is a fair question. The hypothesis that women are held to a higher standard in this context would imply the obvious conclusion that only the “best” would make it, which is in direct opposition with the data that women are a substantial majority of students everywhere.
On the other hand I perfectly acknowledged that gender stereotypes exist and these do explain both sides of the equation that I presented with “unrelated data”: they explain both having a mere 13% of females in IT faculties and having 8% of males in education faculties. The same exact dynamic applies to males and females, which both - due to peer pressure, and fixed gender roles - end up being discouraged to pursue certain careers.
If “women get discouraged their whole life” was a generally valid statement, then asking “why then they are the majority of medicine students, a faculty with the toughest admission exam, a scientific faculty and also a long and hard one - 11 years in total” is also a valid question in my opinion.
So yeah, despite what you might think, while I have no interest to debate or invalidate one’s experience, maybe this cannot be generalized if there are quite glaring issues with statistical data. Why would you consider data about gender distribution in the education sector in Italy irrelevant in the context of gender dynamics in education (in Italy, since that’s what my comment discussed), is a mystery to me. It’s even more of a mystery considering that that very same data was gathered specifically within the contest of a project about women equality.
Absolutely…but how does that relate to the previous topic?
Earlier you said:
Can you draw connections between what I linked/emphasized and this statement?
It’s quite hard to make connections between statements about adult society (I.e. workplace, reproductive rights) and what happens in teenagers in a completely shielded (and tbh, fairly inclusive) environment like schools (mostly, high school as that’s when people decide to sign up in university). Actually, possibly what happens even earlier, as many people who go to STEM faculties in university come from the “scientific high school” which is the only “liceo” where males are more than females.
On average females earn also higher grades, in all levels of school (which is why I don’t find solid the argument that women have to abide higher standard of excellence in this context).
So all this to say, I definitely think there is a cultural issue that pushes women away from STEM subjects (a phenomenon quite common in all the West), but I don’t think is what my interlocutor suggested - that is another expression of women having to meet higher standards. This wouldn’t explain the corresponding imbalance in other areas.
To make an example: 91.8% of students in teaching sciences are females. 87% of students in computer science are males. I would say that culture stereotypes and fixed gender roles are responsible for both, and instead this idea of “higher standards” seems fuzzy and explains only one side of the equation.
Curious also to note that women are absolutely the vast majority of teachers in kindergarten (99.3%!), primary school (97%), secondary school (77%) and high school (65%). While women are perfectly capable of reproducing gender oppression, it’s also fair to assume that there are plenty of women role models in STEM subjects.
Anyway, besides this long thing, I can’t find solid connections between what you posted and the topic, can you maybe elaborate your point?