I don't understand why the Women's bill is being passed. I don't understand why women are pleased about it.
Should we have more women politicians? Why not..
But are reservations the way to go to achieve that? I don't think so. What do you think will happen now? Instead of Laloo we'll have Rabri. What will this achieve? Increased sensitivity towards women in the parliament? Fat chance!
We'll have a bunch of figurehead women with men behind them making the decisions. The fact that we have so few women in politics, business or any other field is not a problem in itself. It is simply a symptom of deeper malaises.
Our social conditioning still limits women from getting involved in politics. You have the rare Brinda Karat or Sheila Dixit. But they are few and far between. At the grass roots level there are few women getting involved in politics. That is a loss to society because women generally tend to seek solutions rather than seeking to expand their power. (this is a general sweeping assumption based largely on Gilligan's arguments against Kohlberg's research - ethics of care etc)
Coming back to the stop gap solution proposed by the govt, i think it is a short sighted move that won't really help anyone at all.
Was having a conversation with a batchmate yesterday about how few women there are on campus. He observed that when he wrote CAT, atleast 40% of the people in the exam center were female. Yet only 40 out of 300 people here are female. What happened?
I refuse intuitively to believe that women are lacking in intellect in any way. I think somehow, through some mechanism of social conditioning, women are gently weaned away from considering further education beyond the age of 21-23.
Take your average 23 yr old girl who has just finished CA. If she's contemplating writing CAT, nine times out of ten her parents will start worrying about when she will ever get married. I've had people who asked my dad "How are you letting her study an MBA.. where will you go for a more qualified husband for her now"..
We face the same inherent biases everywhere we go, even amongst the really polite gentlemen on campus who observe innocently that "you seem more suited for soft stuff like HR.." People who know me would be amazed if i were called anything close to "soft"!! :)
I think it stems from the society we're in and the opportunities we're offered. Those changes will take a while to happen. Long journeys lie ahead. And reservations won't help..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Is n't this the proverbial rant against social disparities?
comeon i really dont want to sound like a bigot but i have to agree with Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard University. the poor chap lost his job as head honcho of the ivy league college because of his insinuation that women hav'nt done much to further research, a view predicated on factual matter viz. IEEE papers, research work, projects etc etc.
>>>>>I refuse intuitively to believe that women are lacking in intellect in any way. I think somehow, through some mechanism of social conditioning, women are gently weaned away from considering further education beyond the age of 21-23.
And women have been pushing this 'prejudice' tripe for too long. Wat about the JEE.93% are men. a result of social conditioning????i dont think so. that opinion is valid only for a 18th century backdrop. Now, women have it ALMOST as equal(u'll pounce on this i'm sure) but still achieving women like you are a rarity.
I suggest women in general lose the notion that they have to be twice as good as a man to beat him.not true...we had gurinder Chadha and Farah Khan claiming that their movies were panned because of a bias.what crap?.
Well none of you ever protest that being the fairer sex gets u immediately in the good books of us weak men? Beautiful women live their lives unchallenged. some absolute bimbos, but all is forgotten if they are 36-24-36. no one talks abt this because women love to hold on to that gender card.
>>>Those changes will take a while to happen. Long journeys lie ahead. And reservations won't help..
are u suggesting that B schools do without their gender ratio and let meritocracy be the byword. i'm not saying that girls are drafted in to make up the numbers, but isnt this just another form of reservation.
vanity's fair.. what is your point? that women are intellectually inferior? and that larry summers was right? that women are stupider than men??
if so, then present your empirical research, i'll consider listening to you. till then.. your point is invalid.. you cannot quote larry summers being intelligent as an argument. present evidence (if you dare :) )
and the jee.. you are proving my case. how many girls have the opportunity to go to jee prep. how many girls parents uproot their entire families and move to a city with a coaching centre to afford a better opportunity for their ward at the jee (a lot of guys parents do..)
as for bschool and your allegation of reservation.. first off, the establishment clarifies that there is no such affirmative action policy. we'd all LIKE more women on campus, but not enough girls take the cat. that is true.
i'm not sure if you're alleging that women are set a lower bar at iims, because then you SHOULD know that the scores on the CAT (the ONLY empirical method of comparison) match the guys in every way. so no, i dont think it is any form of reservation..
to take my argument on politics forward, what i'd ask for is NOT reservation at an iit.. but scholarships for girls to stay on at corporation schools. THAT measure will reap more rewards than a reservation that will (a) not improve the lot of women/society as a whole (b) devalue the efforts of very smart women who make it into these institutes every year.
my fundamental argument is that curing the symptoms by simply recruiting more women won't solve the problem. its like paying everyone from the ceo down to the janitor an equal wage as a poverty reduction measure.
our policies must be more designed to correcting the problem at the source through (a) education (b) social conditioning
if THIS is the proverbial rant against social disparities, isn't yours the typical chauvinistic comeback? ;)
>>>>and the jee.. you are proving my case. how many girls have the opportunity to go to jee prep. how many girls parents uproot their entire families and move to a city with a coaching centre to afford a better opportunity for their ward at the jee (a lot of guys parents do..)
You are drawing conclusions on the evidence of a very small demographic.
Let me take the example of all the well known schools in singaara Chennai. i can assume that all the girls were from the middle class and most of them were capable of affording tuition fees. how many of these girls made it to the iits.....me being a psbbite, have seen that year after year boys have outstripped girls in competitve exams. I will however accept that girls are the greatest exponents of 'gorge -disgorge' method of study and this is reflected in their better performances in the state board exams.
to extrapolate anything from such an isolated case would be fatous and that is what you had done.so let me proceed.
Mensa- Men have fared better in IQ tests....by better i mean in % terms and not absolute values.
Nobel prizes , Fields medals, etc have always been bagged by men.....
also u have been confining your arguments to
a) impoverished class
b) Women in India.
Surely women in America are not underachieving because of social inequities.
>>>>>i'm not sure if you're alleging that women are set a lower bar at iims, because then you SHOULD know that the scores on the CAT (the ONLY empirical method of comparison) match the guys in every way. so no, i dont think it is any form of reservation..
We'll i think admissions to the iims are contingent on several factors and not just CAT scores. isnt it a form of reservation, when an institute admits a person just so that a ratio is maintained? and remember comparable does not mean better.
Yeah i strongly believe that larry summers was right...he did nt make a sweeping generalisation....he based them on fact that there has always been a dearth of women in areas of research not only at Harvard but also at all major Institutions in the world. he was villified just so that feminists can push through their policies with even more fervor than before.
>>>>>>when an institute admits a person just so that a ratio is maintained?
that's a mighty dangerous statement.. if you'd like me to keep responding with specific examples i could run you down with the fact that there are not more than 50-75 people in a batch of 300 here who have scored higher than me in the CAT. and I am not here on a quota. i could extrapolate that and state that this is true for all women here. but i'm too much of a lady to do that.
When you say that CAT is not the only factor.. are you assuming that we have somehow managed to crack CAT while being so lowly ranked on other parameters that we had to be 'ushered' in? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that when we have enough intellect to crack CAT, we have enough to crack the interview process. I'm assuming you agree that the Calls atleast are gender neutral. Because they are open to empirical verification and one gets more calls simply because one's score is higher.
but seriously, gentlemen(man?) you're missing my point. The social inequities are one of the final barriers left after a long and arduous journey to change practices and perceptions. Even though today it is ILLEGAL to be biased, it is not IMPOSSIBLE. We've won the battle in the courts and office. Now we have to win the battle of the minds.
Are you implying in some way that the great US of A does NOT have social inequities. Is your contention really that the Caucasian White Male who enjoys the highest level of success in that society is the smartest, most intelligent person around? There are two problems against that :
(a) There IS still a lack of opportunity afforded to other sections of society
(b) I also have a problem with what you are trying to measure.
If i simply redefined intelligence in a slightly different cast i could transform the section of society that is considered to possess that intelligence. Time was when we interpreted a persons ability to memorize long shlokas as a sign of intelligence. Now we interpret someone's lack of ethics as the same thing sometimes.
And if you accuse me of drawing generalizations based on one fact aren't you doing the same thing. Do you really think Padma Seshadri Bal Bhavan is representative of ANYTHING indian middle class? It is an urban upper class iyengar brahmin school.
You have to understand what the middle class is my friend. Ask someone who's grown up through it. You sit in the comfort of your air conditioned house with access to pradeep's and MK Singh and expensive (yes expensive) Satyamoorthy's classes and claim to represent the vast indian middle class? :) i think not.
And even in that strata. look at the number of girls who are encouraged to take up science? who are encouraged to TRY for iit? I remember 5 am chemistry classes where there would be ONE row of girls in a class of over 80 people. Those are abysmal entry ratios.
resulting in abysmal exit ones.
when you say "gorge and disgorge" method of study, you are again passing facts as insights. Yes women do better than men on board exams. Is that not a measure of SUCCESS? why do you define it as a measure of FAILURE? or assume that g&d is the only way to do well in them?
I'd contend that more women are offered the support system to do well in board exams. When they aspire higher to think of competitive exams.. they are shot down with "what is the necessity for all this"..
and NOT just in the improverished class of women in india.
when you say more men do better in competitive exams you are again making the mistake of confusing quantity for quality.
The quality of men and women who succeed in competitive exams is the same.. comparable. I know guys who've got 1540 in the GRE and girls who've got 1600 in the SAT.
The QUANTITY on the other hand is the significant difference. The NUMBER of women doing well is limited. So is the number of women trying to do well.
Individual women still manage to compete with individual men at par. This is not a gender argument saying that women are better.. that would involve defining "better".
But on a one to one level Individual women and men are comparable to a significant extent. Unless you believe that everyone from indira gandhi to marilyn vos savant to carly fiora to kiran mazumdar shaw got everything in life through a quota.
This i think establishes the capabilities of women. It's not as though men outstrip us on every parameter of intelligence. Its not as though Harvard does not produce women researchers because women are too stupid to do research. The women who DO utilize that opportunity do AS well as the men who do.
Not enough women get the opportunity. THAT is the crux of my argument..
i believe.. it is now.. your turn :)
>>>> to extrapolate anything from such an isolated case would be fatous and that is what you had done.so let me proceed.
1) this is wat i had said on drawing conclusions on the evidence of a single case.Pls refer 4 th post.
2)The point is that in schools where girls are provided with equal facilities, equal opportunities, boys fare better.This pattern is prevalent in all upper class schools in the state so my argument is not specious. Your always alluding to the poor underpriveleged girl.she does not represent the whole scope of this argument. Please broaden your perspective a little. Show me empirical evidence that girls, who are provided the right encouragemnt, have performed better than Boys.
3)You are playing to the gallery by saying that i dont know what middle class is. Dont pretend to be a friend of the common man, like u know the trouble he goes through. some making these attempts to appeal to my conscience, i dont have one.:-)))---------------Ignore this. because i expect a acerbic discourse on the life of the layman and how i have divorced my self from the realities of society by sipping my cappucino in an Air conditioned room, and somehow because of this i'm not entitled to an opinion. {pathetic attempt to ape your style i admit-----:-))} but i love the moral highground thingy u take in arguments.:-)
>>> and NOT just in the improverished class of women in india.
4) How so..explain if this is seen in the US and Europe.
>> Are you implying in some way that the great US of A does NOT have social inequities. Is your contention really that the Caucasian White Male who enjoys the highest level of success in that society is the smartest, most intelligent person around? There are two problems against that :
(a) There IS still a lack of opportunity afforded to other sections of society
(b) I also have a problem with what you are trying to measure.
5)Yes,WASPs dominate and there is a glass ceiling/barrier, b ut that hasn't stopped Indian, Chinese and Hispanic men from Succeeding. As Summers pointed out , Women despite the level playing field, havent done much in certain core areas.
>> But on a one to one level Individual women and men are comparable to a significant extent. Unless you believe that everyone from indira gandhi to marilyn vos savant to carly fiora to kiran mazumdar shaw got everything in life through a quota.
6) I knew you would throw Fiorina at me.she took a company making money hand over fist, pushed them to a merger and eventually got the boot. but this isn't about her.
i certainly do have a problem with women politicians. they somehow are more susceptible to corruption. ---MOOT.
>> Its not as though Harvard does not produce women researchers because women are too stupid to do research.
7)Women researchers do exist but rarely do they achieve the path breaking, and this was the crux of Summers argument.
>>>Show me empirical evidence that girls, who are provided the right encouragemnt, have performed better than Boys.
WHY?? i'm NOT saying that women are better. simply that they are equal. you are arguing that we are inferior.
Not picking a moral high ground.. simply stating that the middle class woman who studies in sivaswamy kalalaya is more representative than the upper class ladies and gentlemen from psbb (personal dislike for products of that school.. excuse the psbb bashing.. ;) )
see you are contradicting yourself inherently by stating that some women have achieved things. so obviously it is not the fact that they are WOMEN that has held them back.
While some indians and hispanics have succeeded in the US, ask a large sample and they will all relate tales of tougher lives, discrimination too subtle to complain about.
My hypotheses is that a woman has to be a lot tougher than your average man to succeed in ANY field. Due to (a) entry barriers being higher as a result of social conditioning. (b) process being
more difficult on them due to various pressures.
>>>>>are more susceptible to corruption.
is this an example of male rationality? :-) there are more male politicians. Let us define amount of bribes as an empirical measure. The quantum per man or per woman (at the SAME level of political achievement) would be comparable.. If you're going to bring up JJ, let me point out that she is an individual tamilian who had the opportunity to exploit a system. Her behaviour hasn't much to do with her sex. Enough male politicians have exploited the system to similar levels.
>>>>>Yes,WASPs dominate and there is a glass ceiling/barrier, b ut that hasn't stopped Indian, Chinese and Hispanic men from Succeeding. As Summers pointed out , Women despite the level playing field, havent done much in certain core areas.
More inherent contradictions. you've said glass ceiling and level playing field in the same breath.
To sum up, i maintain that women are as intelligent as men.
The reason that they have not been able to achieve as much in various fields is (a) hangover of previous discriminations (b) social conditions (c) pressures of being more responsible for the creation and maintenance of a family unit.
All said and done, a guy doesn't have to worry about taking six months off four years into his career to have a kid. It takes a man about ten minutes to have a child. It takes a woman nine months. That does impact careers and choices to a significant extent. This is changing slightly but still a long way to go.
Why is the only man here who is holding that men are smarter than women so afraid to reveal his identity that he is posting anon.? ;)
>>Yes,WASPs dominate and there is a glass ceiling/barrier, b ut that hasn't stopped Indian, Chinese and Hispanic men from Succeeding. As Summers pointed out , Women despite the level playing field, havent done much in certain core areas.
Glass ceiling affects all minorities not just women.the second part of the statement is just to rephrase Summers viewpoint. As head of an Ivy league school, he surely wont agree there is any kind of discrimination.
How do u explain the success of Vinod Khosla, Vinod Metha, gururaj deshpande, Brin, page etc etc....if they have overcome prejudice to become achievers y cant women... in fact there are more colored people in the top rung of corporations/institutions(90% of them being men) than there are women? a startling fact?
>>>>>My hypotheses is that a woman has to be a lot tougher than your average man to succeed in ANY field. Due to (a) entry barriers being higher as a result of social conditioning. (b) process being
more difficult on them due to various pressures.
Again this argument refers to the poor indian woman.....and in no way validates your claim that women are as intelligent as men when it comes to core areas.
Nowadays being a woman is more advantageous. Corporates think twice before relieving women because they dont want trigger happy feminists knocking at the door with threats of a lawsuit. :-O
The fact that women in India tend to play the wounded bird far too often annoys me.Prejudice/bias is blamed for everything. they rake up issues like this at the drop of a hat. mayawati, Martha stewart , JJ the list is endless.
>>>> The reason that they have not been able to achieve as much in various fields is (a) hangover of previous discriminations (b) social conditions (c) pressures of being more responsible for the creation and maintenance of a family unit.
U still havent answered as to y women dont achieve as much as men in areas of science and technology, despite the large number that pursue it. The first two reasons refer to UIG(underprivileged indian girl). the third is also out of place since companies and edu instutions offer maternity leave and day care facilities. Suze, Welcome to the 21st Century.
Why are u preoccuopied with the UIG??? no support to your phoren sisters? theyll be bossing your arnd soon....:))
U made a valid argument about how the definition of intelligence has changed. By the old definition (the sloka thing) women are just as intelligent, but with the passage of time have come several revisions to this definition. And so with the new definition in mind i can 't accept your claim of equality wrt intelligence. [wat a f***** bigot i am]
>>>>Why is the only man here who is holding that men are smarter than women so afraid to reveal his identity that he is posting anon.? ;)
Suze, i wish i can wave this badge of chauvinism proudly :-)), but i dont have a girlfriend and such a post would certainly result in me being blackballed by the PYTs. i cant afford that. i'll mail u sometime.but that shud be our little secret ;-)
>>>>As head of an Ivy league school, he surely wont agree there is any kind of discrimination.
you are offering his reputation as a guarantee against his statements? common logical fallacy. don't ask me to believe in his inherent intelligence. if your point had any validity, it should be proveable whether said by larry summers or king tut.
>>>>if they have overcome prejudice to become achievers y cant women..
you are agreeing that there are prejudices against women and ethnic minorities.
that is my entire point. that these prejudices make it harder for a woman to succeed. and that is why you find lesser number of women "succeeding". because it takes time to overcome those prejudices.
ethnic minorities face very similar pressures on some fronts as women do. BUT, women also face different expectations. Whether you are a black man or a WASP, the same things (provide a home, make money) are expected of you. There is a LARGE difference between what is expected of a woman and a man. That decreases her ability to succeed.
>>>>> >>>>>My hypotheses is that a woman has to be a lot tougher than your average man to succeed in ANY field. Due to (a) entry barriers being higher as a result of social conditioning. (b) process being
more difficult on them due to various pressures.
>>>>>Again this argument refers to the poor indian woman.....and in no way validates your claim that women are as intelligent as men when it comes to core areas.
Are you saying that middle class/upper class women don't face social pressures and conditioning?? I'm NOT restricting my argument to poor indian women.
Women, whether rich or poor, have to bear kids.. keep a home.. that expectation doesn't change. That adds to the "process" pressure of succeeding.
savvy?
and in board exams, competitive tests, surprise quizzes, money earning potential.. there ARE women who do AS WELL as men. there are just fewer in number.
You are confusing quantity with quality and evading the fundamental crux of my argument.
The QUANTITY of women succeeding according to your definitions of success is lower. Because of social conditioning, higher expectations and "process" difficulties.
The QUALITY of women and men succeeding is the same. Give me a field i'm knowledgable about. I don't know anything about higher scientific research in Harvard and don't have the time to find out. But in politics, business, law, entrepreneurship.. women who HAVE succeeded have done so as well as men. The number who have is low.
Same thing on campus re: CAT. The women who have gotten here have scores that are comparable to that obtained by men. The number is lower.
Same thing re : JEE
>>>>> The fact that women in India tend to play the wounded bird far too often annoys me
to quote a prof of mine.. "So?"
the tendency of men to be "alpha", passive aggresive, condescending and patronizing annoys me severely. we all have our crosses to bear.
>>>>>U still havent answered as to y women dont achieve as much as men in areas of science and technology, despite the large number that pursue it.
i've outlined the reasons very clearly above. please read it. :)
>>>>>the third is also out of place since companies and edu instutions offer maternity leave and day care facilities. Suze, Welcome to the 21st Century.
funny how an anonymous commenter on a blog finds my concerns superficial.. while top notch recruiters at DB and Barclays Capital find them extremely pertinent and valid. Must be the fact that you are very aware of corporate situations and pressures while they are mere ignorant souls na? :p
personal ventings aside..
offering maternity leave is not enough is it?
In a high pressure investment bank, is it easy to take a decision to just cleanly take six months off? and assume you'll go back to the same job, without anyone having muscled in on your territory? And childcare? So you assume that each of us is perfectly fine with leaving our child in the hands of strangers from the age of six and a half months? That each woman can afford it while paying rent on an apartment in London? Or do you think that Wall street cos. offer in house day care as a complimentary facility? :)
Or do you assume that the indian male is perfectly happy with the set up and doesn't complain about it on and on. The minute a kid comes home with a B- in the report card, mommy's job is to blame. Imagine the guilt of that. Daddy who's always away at business meetings is admired for being so busy. Mommy is a selfish caregiver.
Grow up Anon. Welcome to the real world. Initiating a HR proposal and writing a white paper does not change the world. Just like reservations will not transform our political landscape.
It takes time.
Which is where i ended my original post.
>>>>>funny how an anonymous commenter on a blog finds my concerns superficial.. while top notch recruiters at DB and Barclays Capital find them extremely pertinent and valid. Must be the fact that you are very aware of corporate situations and pressures while they are mere ignorant souls na? :p
well who is condescending and patonizing now????U really dont want to be in my shoes miss.do u think 20 hr days at an educational institute that breeds jargon droppers, number crunchers and button pushers prepares you for the realities of life. and in some way because of this you r superior to the rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>Same thing on campus re: CAT. The women who have gotten here have scores that are comparable to that obtained by men. The number is lower.Same thing re : JEE
Stop the quality quantity bull shit. it doesn't account for the success percentages(the number of women passing/no of women attempting), it may explain the disparity in absolute terms.
i'm sure to this youll offer the threadbare 'social conditioning ' tripe. yeah then y do men do better on simple IQ tests, Mensa openly states that men do better in their IQ tests and that women are found lacking in spatial and quantitative skills .....i'm sure social conditioning and internal pressures have contibuted to this!!!!
and u want to poke holes in my argument , please go ahead but consider the entirity of my arguments. dont dissect them to suit your needs.
>>>In a high pressure investment bank, is it easy to take a decision to just cleanly take six months off? and assume you'll go back to the same job, without anyone having muscled in on your territory? And childcare? So you assume that each of us is perfectly fine with leaving our child in the hands of strangers from the age of six and a half months? That each woman can afford it while paying rent on an apartment in London? Or do you think that Wall street cos. offer in house day care as a complimentary facility? :)
rofltime.......i'm sure women will nag their husnbands until he foots the bill.
its easy to be a woman nowadays in the corporate world in large part to the efforts of womens organisation.ive already mentioned this in my prev post.
arey, even men have obligations and commitments that hamper career prospects. in most occassions the financial burden is passed on to the son, who has to shelve his ambitions in order to put food on the table. he is also given the duty to get his unmarried sister(who is at home, upset at social conditioning and internal pressures) married. By shelving his ambition i mean he is dissuaded from pursuing another degree, instead choosing to take up an acivity which entails immediate returns.....this argument severely narrows the overall scope of the discussion but wat the hell. if suze can do it I can too.
I'm not interested in measuring the IQ of the few women who do well. exceptions cannot be used to prove a theory....also another remarkable result of these iq tests is that average Joe is more intelligent than Average Jane.
hmm i totally agree with most of what u said....but do read this.....
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IE320050825113709&Title=Features+%2D+Health+%26+Science&Topic=166&
lol
See fellow anon, i take medical research of this type with a pinch of salt. there will be another study soon that contradicts this one,so which one do we subscribe to. bunkum.....but i do believe in standardised IQ tests that use more than one parameter.its results are conclusive and in most cases indisputable
dear i have no balls, you believe that standardized tests are completely impartial and not suspect to any inbuilt biases and are indisputable and conclusive?
how naive :)
give it up for suze....... she wins this round with the far fetched conspiracy theory those chauvinists at MENSA have hatched.......i'm sure db and ATK found that concern very pertinent!:-)))
lolz..
sweetiez.
the day you guys grow a uterus and have to worry about balancing kids and a family and a work life, we'll talk..
the superwoman pressure still holds and women are as intelligent as men.
a lot of tests do contain a lot of inherent biases towards WASPs, simply because they are written by them.
and that's that :)
And thats the most comments you've received for a piece....thank u.thank u very much. *takes a bow*
thought i had 21 n all earlier.. :) but thank u too..
damn i missed this discussion.very lively it was.
---->the day you guys grow a uterus and have to worry about balancing kids and a family and a work life, we'll talk
i dont think its only the uterus that we are missing.
yup.. i'd add half a brain to that list :))
j/k!
whoa suze... so my feat of achieving 185 comments to a post and "hitting" 4 other half century posts looks like its gonna take quite some beating, uh? :p
dei....out of the 185,you were 85 and your bro was another 75.
thanks anon for rescuing my ego..
Post a Comment