[m_eiman]

What is wrong with gender stereotypes?

The problem with any stereotype is that it limits choice ("I'm a boy so I -must- play with guns instead of dolls"), which leads to inefficient use of the potential of the next generation. To miss out on a math genius just because she happened to be a girl and was taught that she's too stupid to handle advanced math is detrimental to the advancement of the human race.

Boys and girls -are- physically different, but physical differences are enormous even within each gender (or race, if we're going to get into that kind of stereotype) and pretty much the only thing that's physically hardwired to be possible for only girls or boys are their respective functions in reproduction (almost, tech is making advances…).

So limit an individual's choices based on gender is as dumb as limiting them based on race. And yes, by only ever showing "boys using boys' toys" and "girls using girls' toys" we are in effect limiting the available choices for kids; we're a social species after all.

[belorn]

The "girls can't do math" stereotype is not just wrong, its false in the sense that we should just stop saying it. Its more akin to a bad told myth, brining harm where ever its being retold.

The #1 preferred profession from a woman in Sweden is economist, based on yearly polls. If one look at university education, women dominate the class room in every areas of match except one subject (abstract math), and then men only reach above 50% in abstract math after the 3rd year.

So the stereotype is not true. Its not true as in, women are as able to handle math as men, but it also not true because women actually work with math more commonly than men in real life. Its not true in any aspect what so ever, so please, please stop spreading the myth. Its only doing harm. If you need to describe a stereotype, take one that's not this one.

[boboblong]

>If one look at university education, women dominate the class room in every areas of math except one subject (abstract math)

In other words, women are better than men at complex arithmetic, but men are better than women at mathematics.

[belorn]

If abstract math is the only "pure" mathematics is open to debate :).

On other hand, in 1st, 2th, and 3th year, there are still more women in abstract math classes than men. I do not think any "who is better at what" can be said, beyond the stereotype "women are bad at math" can be explicitly be stated as false.

[B-Con]

> On other hand, in 1st, 2th, and 3th year, there are still more women in abstract math classes than men.

This is almost definitely false. While the male/female gender ratio is reasonably close to even for math majors (I think it's 60/40 m/f?), it is nowhere close to even for many heavy math-based disciplines. Engineering and computer science degrees are very male-dominate and the students routinely spill over into math classes.

FWIW, I majored in math at a university that was 10th highest in the student female to male ratio. I counted some of the classes for fun, and I remember counting a slight male majority most of the time. One semester I believe I counted a 57% male population over my math classes.

> I do not think any "who is better at what" can be said, beyond the stereotype "women are bad at math" can be explicitly be stated as false.

This certainly seems to be true. High school females are starting to outperform males in math, while males continue to dominate math graduate school. Reasons are unknown, but in general we can say that "girls aren't bad at math".

[belorn]

See top post about this being specifically about Swedish statistics. For specifics, it was data reported by the universities themselves, calculated by the overseeing body for education, and published in Swedish news media 2011 last time I saw it.

[boboblong]

When people speak of "abstract math", they generally mean mathematics, because they use the term "math" far too loosely. In a very real sense, a person can be taught to "do math" all the way through Calculus III, Linear Algebra, and even Differential Equations and still not have any real aptitude for mathematics.

[pbhjpbhj]

>stereotype is that it limits choice ("I'm a boy so I -must- play with guns instead of dolls"), which leads to inefficient use of the potential of the next generation //

Stereotypes don't themselves limit choice they enable statistical analysis of populations. It's what you choose to do with the analysis that can lead to limitation of choice.

However, if I'm tall and you're short then it's not better for us together as a [small] population to cut short my legs and give you stilts to give us a semblance of similarity - who's going to reach all the high and low places [efficiently] then?

Of course this doesn't speak to an individuals worth, but your sentence says "the next generation" and so we're looking at the population as a whole.

>To miss out on a math genius just because she happened to be a girl and was taught that she's too stupid to handle advanced math is detrimental to the advancement of the human race. //

Individuals are largely irrelevant to the advancement of the human race.

Now the question is if group A have a propensity born out of their biology to activity X but you have to ensure that equal numbers of group B are doing X, despite their propensity for that activity being statistically reduced over group A's then that is inefficient. I would warrant in a far more significant way. It's a big if of course.

No one is supporting teaching people they're stupid.

>So limit an individual's choices based on gender is as dumb as limiting them based on race. //

I don't agree that these are comparable. If I want to be a mother then my race is largely irrelevant.

However, those who wish to remove gendered play are attempting to limit choice based on gender. By not letting gender-C do activity Y _because that's a stereotypical activity thusfar for gender-C_ you are doing that very thing that you'd claim not to. Moreover you're assuming that the behaviour is bad just because of the gender of the subject.

[FWIW if you'd couched your arguments in terms of something akin to a Kantian imperative instead of in terms of benefit to the human race I think they'd be much stronger].