Feminist lose their shit over their own "gender studies"

>The study itself surmises that these stereotypes become entrenched at a very young age and ultimately discourage adult women from entering professions that require special mental abilities. It goes on to argue that women are "underrepresented" in fields in which members cherish brilliance, such as physics and philosophy.

>The researchers conducted a series of experiments that included 400 children. In one, they took 96 kids and asked them a series of questions about brilliance and gender. For example, they were told a brief story about a person who was "really, really smart" and then asked to pick the protagonist from four photos, two of men and two of women.
>Across the various questions, 5-year-old boys said their own gender was smart 71 percent of the time, compared to 69 percent of the time for girls. Among 6-year-olds, the numbers were 65 percent for boys and 48 percent for girls. And among 7-year-olds, it was 68 percent for boys and 54 percent for girls.

>And another experiment asked 6- and 7-year-olds about the appeal of two similar imaginary games, one intended for "children who are really, really smart," and one for "children who try really, really hard." Girls were less interested than boys in the game aimed at smart kids but interest was similar in the game for hard workers.
>Girls, after all, were split about evenly in associating brilliance with their gender, she notes. The boys were more likely to make the association with their own gender. So do girls need help in thinking more like the boys, or vice versa?

>>132624397
>women are "underrepresented" in fields in which members cherish brilliance
shocking

>"If we want to change young people’s minds and make things more equitable for girls, we really need to know when this problematic stereotype first emerges, and then we know when to intervene to avoid these negative consequences on girls’ educational decisions and their future career choices,” said lead author Lin Bian, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

>The stereotype that men are better at math and science is a pervasive one, difficult to dislodge even at the highest echelons of higher education. In 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers stirred up controversy during a speech in which he said that women were underrepresented in the sciences in part because of “issues of intrinsic aptitude.”

>>132625914
The science is settled on this, but luckily we have critical theory to tell us the science is wrong until it gets the right result.

>These stereotypes may have serious consequences for young women in college and their future careers. For example, the authors point out, previous research has shown that the idea that men are better than women at math actually impairs women’s performance and undermines their interest in math-related fields.

>>132622334
But don't these feminists realize that they have also been infested by these ideas when they were younger, and that perhaps their strong desires for feminism is perhaps a result of this early indoctrination? In order to truly fight this phenomenon, feminists should actually act opposite of how they are now, to "fight the programming"

>The authors also tested whether these beliefs about gender and brilliance affected girls’ interests. The researchers had 64 6- and 7-year-olds play two games — one for “really, really smart” (i.e. “brilliant”) children and one for “children who try really, really hard.” Girls seemed drawn to the “hard-working” game about as much as boys — but they were significantly less interested than boys were in the game for brilliant kids.

>"The present results suggest a sobering conclusion: Many children assimilate the idea that brilliance is a male quality at a young age,” the authors wrote. “This stereotype begins to shape children’s interests as soon as it is acquired and is thus likely to narrow the range of careers they will one day contemplate"
>That this shift occurs around age 5 may have to do with children entering more formal school scenarios, where they’re exposed to many other people (both children and adults), said Yarrow Dunham, a developmental psychologist at Yale University who was not involved in the study.
>It’s unclear which of the myriad social influences happening at the time could be contributing to girls’ shift in self-perception, he added. It’s possible, for example, that teachers might be unconsciously reinforcing stereotypes by how they respond to boys and girls in the classroom. Or perhaps the exposure to history books that mostly feature men causes children to assume that women are largely absent because they were less intelligent (rather than because of laws and social mores that for centuries treated women as second-class citizens). For now, the complex causes of these stereotypes remain an open question.
They want to believe that girls and boys are the same so bad. There has to be an underlying reason more girls don't become physicists besides the fact that girls don't want to be mathematicians. Because that would be problematic.

File: tJ8smuY.jpg (43KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x534px

>Andrei Cimpian, a co-author of the research from New York University, said that the work highlights how even young children can absorb and be influenced by gender stereotypes – such as the idea that brilliance or giftedness is more common in men.
>“Because these ideas are present at such an early age, they have so much time to affect the educational trajectories of boys and girls,” he said."

Two Dudes Wrote A Fake Penis Study and Got It Published to Slam Gender Research
>"Penis is a social construct and causes global warming."
>Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model
>The rest of the fault is on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as 'gender studies'
>flawed, weak, or incorrect papers get published in practically all disciplines, including medicine and math
http://archive.is/AWW9m

even brilliant women have the innate desire to care for people and be the helper for a man...why don't women view themselves as brilliant? because brilliance doesn't matter as much as working hard to help her mate/family/tribe for women
Women have been this way for centuries: beauty attracts a mate and hard work helps to keep their family healthy. It's only in the last 100 years that a woman could be valued for her own intelligence and make her own way without a man...and even then, women are constantly told that they will need to work harder to prove that they are as valuable as a man in any field requiring brilliance. Working hard has always been a valued part of womanhood....intelligence, not so much.

File: 888.jpg (40KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x534px

>>132622334

It's almost as if these kids didn't grow up their whole lives been treated as if they were a special part of the world, just barely keeping it together.

>>132625599
>we really need to know when this problematic stereotype first emerges
What if it is genetics? Taht would explain why all ancient civilizations through history have always been patriarchal and why even today fighting that gives barely any result.

>So do girls need help in thinking more like the boys, or vice versa?
what the fuck

>>132625599
>Lin Bian
dog eater fob telling whites how to live