A Welcome from Ilana

[IlanaSimons]

Hi Justin,

I haven't read the book.  Are you a friend of the author?

society aint devolving is it?  maybe is.

Ilana

---

JustinRoberts wrote:

LLana,

A while ago, while strolling through the mystery section of the BN website, I found a novel that really took me by surprise.  I like a good mystery, and that was all I was after.  Made curious by the book's title, I read the first chapter online. The writing was like every other Sherlock Holmes book, which pleased me.  But then it quickly identified itself as HIGHLY unique in the mystery genre.  It began to suggest that Holmes and Watson were aged, yet still fit, due to wise eating and active minds.

I bought the book and began to explore America in ways I had never thought of before. A Home Depot every three miles, shopping malls with the same shops making many cities generic, nothing unique. Students obtaining degrees without knowing the basics of art, music, history and geography.

All this, according to the novel, was a calculated plot by corporations to dumb down American society in an effort to sell, sell, sell and gain more and more profit. 

The novel, SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE CASE OF THE MISSING AMERICAN CULTURE has stayed with me. After just finishing Susan Jacoby's book the AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON I was prompted to re-read Frawley's novel.

Is society devolving?  What are your thoughts?

Justin  

---

[JustinRoberts]

Many thanks for the reply.  I wish I did know the author. I'd love to have a lengthy conversation with him.  However, I read he lives in Wales, of all places.

Susan Jacoby's book also got to me. TV preachers, crap politicians, dumbed down language, AHHH!

"Touch base", "a heads up", "communicate telephonically", "OMG!"

Devolution?  Maybe.

Justin

[Peppermill]

When I was actively participating in this board a few months ago, I remember a discussion on the concerns about education of boys in our American culture.  Today I noted an article on a subsequent study, which may interest some of you.   Since the study was apparently supported by the AAUW,  an instant reaction is that it is likely to be biased.  I am in no position to judge whether that reaction is at all valid or not.  Some of the reasoning backwards from continuing salary differences between genders may be spurious, although not necessarily irrelevant.  Nonetheless, the description here came across as its possibly being a carefully enough constructed study to be worthy of joining the conversation.

No Crisis For Boys in Schools, Study Says

[Everyman]

---

Peppermill wrote:
... Today I noted an article on a subsequent study, which may interest some of you. Since the study was apparently supported by the AAUW, an instant reaction is that it is likely to be biased....

---

Thanks for posting that. Whether it's biased or not, it's certainly cherry-picking data. For example, in support of their conclusion they say that "A literacy gap in favor of girls is not new, nor is it increasing." But there still is a gap, and the fact that it's not increasing doesn't mean there's not a crisis. (If the AAUW saw that the incidence of date rape wasn't increasing, would they take that as evidence that there was no problem needing addressing?) And when they say that "Perhaps the most compelling argument against a boys crisis is that men continue to outearn women in the workplace," they are mixing up the boys and the men! The fact that I at age, well let's just say old, outearn females of my age and education (assuming I do) has nothing to do with whether boys in school are or are not doing as well as girls. That's not just comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing the sun and a black hole, which is what a sun will eventually turn into.

It's a shame that university women can't be fair minded about an issue. That doesn't speak well for the quality of education that university women, or at least those women in charge of the study, have received, does it?

[Everyman]

I'm not sure I would call it a crisis, but I think there's little if any doubt that in the past 20 years our schools have very much feminized education.

[Timbuktu1]

---

Everyman wrote:
I'm not sure I would call it a crisis, but I think there's little if any doubt that in the past 20 years our schools have very much feminized education.

---

I couldn't access the article but I agree that things are so skewed. For instance, my son missed out on getting a National Merit Scholarship because his Math score was higher than his verbal on the SAT. Turns out that because women consistently score lower on Math and higher on verbal they have weighted the verbal score in order to allow more women to get National Merit scholarships. His friend (a boy) who had a lower composite score but a higher verbal did get the scholarship.

[Everyman]

Here is a somewhat related and interesting (to me, at least) article suggesting that the paucity of women in math and science isn't simply a function of discrimination but is at least partly related to a simple lack of interest in these subjects.

[Timbuktu1]

---

Everyman wrote:
Here is a somewhat related and interesting (to me, at least) article suggesting that the paucity of women in math and science isn't simply a function of discrimination but is at least partly related to a simple lack of interest in these subjects.

---

Well, I'm not president of Harvard so I can speak the truth with no repercussions. Male brains and female brains are different. That's not an opinion, it's scientific fact. When I was in grad school, in the 80's, I decided to investigate this. The research was downright comical. All through the 70's and 80's studies were designed, all over the world, in order to demonstrate that the math/verbal differential was due to cultural forces. EVERY study showed just the opposite. These studies were done in many different countries, Singapore, Europe, America, and every study failed to show the effect was a cultural one. But did the scientists admit to a faulty hypothesis? Of course not! Each study would end with a disclaimer. There was a flaw in the design of the experiment. Obviously.

It's not the church any longer that censors scientific findings but censored they are.
Hormones work on the fetus, in utero and change the developing brain. Of course the differences are for groups, and individual variations are huge. But the truth is the truth and poor Larry Summers dared to speak the truth.

BTW, there are many studies out there demonstrating interests are also controlled by hormones. Females are relationship oriented (surprised?) and males enjoy working with objects. Many of the studies use men and women with chromosomal abnormalities. It's a fascinating field and if I had another life to live I would have pursued this. OTH, I chose to stay home and raise babies! LOL!
My son is a genetic researcher!

[Choisya]

I think perhaps the most significant finding here is that by Marianne Bertrand:

"I've gone from the glass ceiling to thinking, if these jobs weren't 70 hours a week, women might not need to take so much time off," she says.

Benbow and Lubinski, at Vanderbilt, found that high-achieving women often pick their careers based on the idea that they'll eventually take time off, and thus avoid fields in which that absence will exact a larger penalty. In humanities or philosophy, for instance, taking a year or two off won't affect one's skill set very much. But in quickly evolving technical fields, a similar sabbatical can be a huge career setback."

There are 4 high achieving women in my family and all have had great difficulty in balancing their careers with child care.  My eldest daughter (now 50), in particular, works in a traditionally male field - construction - and she  encountered a great deal of sex discrimination (and workplace bullying) in her youth. When attitudes began to change some 20 years ago she began to do well and promotion took her to the head of her field. However, once her daughter went to secondary (high) school and she needed time off for parents'  evenings, or to be home to oversee homework etc etc she found the life-work balance increasingly difficult to maintain. Right now my grand-daughter is doing A-levels in preparation for going up to University and my daughter, now an FCIB* and MSc, has recently secured a very high-powered job, with a multi-million pound budget, overseeing the building of sustainable schools in London. She is finding the long hours and frequent trips away very difficult in view of her daughter's current needs (and teenage emotions).   Research has shown that men are not as hampered by these considerations, that they still do not take a fair share of the responsibilities of running a home or looking after children and that these burdens fall disproportionately upon women which, for high-flyers, is a serious disincentive.

My other daughter and my two daughters-in-law, once high flyers in technical careers, have now opted to become teachers which gives them a better work-life balance and a far less stressful existence than my elder daughter has because ttheir hours can more easily be fitted around the demands of their home and children. 

*Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building.

On the subject of the genetic differences between men and women, I think we also have to take into consideration the centuries of discrimination against women not only in pursuing careers at all but particularly in pursuing what were always thought of as 'male' careers.  We have studied a number of books here where Victorian female authors struggled against immense odds to pursue their chosen path, even resorting to disguising themselves as men to do so (Bronte, Sand).  Relatively little has been wrtten about women who tried to pursue technical careers but we do know that those trying to be doctors like Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Emily Davies encountered great difficulties.   There is a 'nature v. nurture' argument here - genetics may predispose women to study for less technical careers but culture and nurture also play their part.    

---

Everyman wrote:
Here is a somewhat related and interesting (to me, at least) article suggesting that the paucity of women in math and science isn't simply a function of discrimination but is at least partly related to a simple lack of interest in these subjects.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-21-2008 04:24 AM

[Timbuktu1]

---

Choisya wrote:

I think perhaps the most significant finding here is that by Marianne Bertrand:

"I've gone from the glass ceiling to thinking, if these jobs weren't 70 hours a week, women might not need to take so much time off," she says.

Benbow and Lubinski, at Vanderbilt, found that high-achieving women often pick their careers based on the idea that they'll eventually take time off, and thus avoid fields in which that absence will exact a larger penalty. In humanities or philosophy, for instance, taking a year or two off won't affect one's skill set very much. But in quickly evolving technical fields, a similar sabbatical can be a huge career setback."

There are 4 high achieving women in my family and all have had great difficulty in balancing their careers with child care.  My eldest daughter (now 50), in particular, works in a traditionally male field - construction - and she  encountered a great deal of sex discrimination (and workplace bullying) in her youth. When attitudes began to change some 20 years ago she began to do well and promotion took her to the head of her field. However, once her daughter went to secondary (high) school and she needed time off for parents'  evenings, or to be home to oversee homework etc etc she found the life-work balance increasingly difficult to maintain. Right now my grand-daughter is doing A-levels in preparation for going up to University and my daughter, now an FCIB* and MSc, has recently secured a very high-powered job, with a multi-million pound budget, overseeing the building of sustainable schools in London. She is finding the long hours and frequent trips away very difficult in view of her daughter's current needs (and teenage emotions).   Research has shown that men are not as hampered by these considerations, that they still do not take a fair share of the responsibilities of running a home or looking after children and that these burdens fall disproportionately upon women which, for high-flyers, is a serious disincentive.

My other daughter and my two daughters-in-law, once high flyers in technical careers, have now opted to become teachers which gives them a better work-life balance and a far less stressful existence than my elder daughter has because ttheir hours can more easily be fitted around the demands of their home and children. 

*Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building.

---

Everyman wrote:
Here is a somewhat related and interesting (to me, at least) article suggesting that the paucity of women in math and science isn't simply a function of discrimination but is at least partly related to a simple lack of interest in these subjects.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-21-2008 04:10 AM

---

That also accounts for why women are said to make 79 cents to a man's dollar. They usually take time off or make career choices so that they can raise children.

[Timbuktu1]

---

Choisya wrote:

I think perhaps the most significant finding here is that by Marianne Bertrand:

"I've gone from the glass ceiling to thinking, if these jobs weren't 70 hours a week, women might not need to take so much time off," she says.

Benbow and Lubinski, at Vanderbilt, found that high-achieving women often pick their careers based on the idea that they'll eventually take time off, and thus avoid fields in which that absence will exact a larger penalty. In humanities or philosophy, for instance, taking a year or two off won't affect one's skill set very much. But in quickly evolving technical fields, a similar sabbatical can be a huge career setback."

There are 4 high achieving women in my family and all have had great difficulty in balancing their careers with child care.  My eldest daughter (now 50), in particular, works in a traditionally male field - construction - and she  encountered a great deal of sex discrimination (and workplace bullying) in her youth. When attitudes began to change some 20 years ago she began to do well and promotion took her to the head of her field. However, once her daughter went to secondary (high) school and she needed time off for parents'  evenings, or to be home to oversee homework etc etc she found the life-work balance increasingly difficult to maintain. Right now my grand-daughter is doing A-levels in preparation for going up to University and my daughter, now an FCIB* and MSc, has recently secured a very high-powered job, with a multi-million pound budget, overseeing the building of sustainable schools in London. She is finding the long hours and frequent trips away very difficult in view of her daughter's current needs (and teenage emotions).   Research has shown that men are not as hampered by these considerations, that they still do not take a fair share of the responsibilities of running a home or looking after children and that these burdens fall disproportionately upon women which, for high-flyers, is a serious disincentive.

My other daughter and my two daughters-in-law, once high flyers in technical careers, have now opted to become teachers which gives them a better work-life balance and a far less stressful existence than my elder daughter has because ttheir hours can more easily be fitted around the demands of their home and children. 

*Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building.

On the subject of the genetic differences between men and women, I think we also have to take into consideration the centuries of discrimination against women not only in pursuing careers at all but particularly in pursuing what were always thought of as 'male' careers.  We have studied a number of books here where Victorian female authors struggled against immense odds to pursue their chosen path, even resorting to disguising themselves as men to do so (Bronte, Sand).  Relatively little has been wrtten about women who tried to pursue technical careers but we do know that those trying to be doctors like Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Emily Davies encountered great difficulties.   There is a 'nature v. nurture' argument here - genetics may predispose women to study for less technical careers but culture and nurture also play their part.    

---

Everyman wrote:
Here is a somewhat related and interesting (to me, at least) article suggesting that the paucity of women in math and science isn't simply a function of discrimination but is at least partly related to a simple lack of interest in these subjects.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-21-2008

class="time_text">04:24 AM

---

The burdens of child-rearing may fall on women but so do the joys.

[Choisya]

Lower pay for women is a matter of history as much as discrimination and in modern society can be said to date back to WWI when there was great resistance by skilled, unionised, workers to the 'dilution' of their industry.   When, in 1915, the British government began recruiting women into the engineering industry there were widespread strikes and resistance.  The outcome of this, after long and bitter negotiations, was that women should be paid less than men for the work they performed, whether it was of an equal standard or not.  The same negotiations took place at the beginning of WWII and so, historically, the die was cast for lower rates of pay for women.  I suspect that much the same thing took place in the US.  

It is only in recent years, particularly when female membership increased, that trade unions began to campaign for equal pay for women and that governments, with their eye on the female vote, have begun to take up that cause.  It has been further complicated by the large amount of part-time work done by women  in the UK, anxious to keep up with their home and child care responsibilities. It is the same in the US .There have always been arguments as to whether part-time work or job-share is of equal value to full time work and in some industries and professions the splitting of the working day or of responsibilities has been seen to result in a poorer standard of output.

Prior to WWI and the large scale employment of women in engineering factories and other 'male' trades, woman's work was often different to men's and was less valued by society bcause it was seen as easier.   In the cotton factories of the early Industrial Revolution male and female work was strictly designated, the men making and maintaining the machinery and doing the heavy work whilst the women and girls wove, carded etc. 

(I know quite a lot about 'dilution' as it was the subject of my dissertation, long, long ago and my father was active in many trade union/government wage negotiations involving women during WWII.)  

---

Peppermill wrote:

When I was actively participating in this board a few months ago, I remember a discussion on the concerns about education of boys in our American culture.  Today I noted an article on a subsequent study, which may interest some of you.   Since the study was apparently supported by the AAUW,  an instant reaction is that it is likely to be biased.  I am in no position to judge whether that reaction is at all valid or not.  Some of the reasoning backwards from continuing salary differences between genders may be spurious, although not necessarily irrelevant.  Nonetheless, the description here came across as its possibly being a carefully enough constructed study to be worthy of joining the conversation.

No Crisis For Boys in Schools, Study Says

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-21-2008 06:37 AM

[Everyman]

The family/work choice (problem or opportunity depending on how one sees it) would be eliminated if humans could develop a method of reproduction that doesn't require more involvement by women than by men in the process of continuing the human race. Turtles, for example, have done pretty well in this regard, as have salmon. Unfortunately either God or evolution, depending on one's point of view, has determined otherwise. Until we can devise effective mechanical wombs and infant care robots, we're stuck with what we have, and complaining about may be fun but seems pretty pointless.

[Choisya]

.  Biological 'involvement' by women during gestation and birth has perforce to be greater than that of men but various societies in the world have had different ways of coping with child care which involve men as much or even more than women.  Men in some societies go through a kind of phantom pregnancy and birth ('couvade') and in the UK men have also experienced this .

---

Everyman wrote:
The family/work choice (problem or opportunity depending on how one sees it) would be eliminated if humans could develop a method of reproduction that doesn't require more involvement by women than by men in the process of continuing the human race. Turtles, for example, have done pretty well in this regard, as have salmon. Unfortunately either God or evolution, depending on one's point of view, has determined otherwise. Until we can devise effective mechanical wombs and infant care robots, we're stuck with what we have, and complaining about may be fun but seems pretty pointless.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-21-2008 01:49 PM

[Timbuktu1]

---

Choisya wrote:

.  Biological 'involvement' by women during gestation and birth has perforce to be greater than that of men but various societies in the world have had different ways of coping with child care which involve men as much or even more than women.  Men in some societies go through a kind of phantom pregnancy and birth ('couvade') and in the UK men have also experienced this .

---

Everyman wrote:
The family/work choice (problem or opportunity depending on how one sees it) would be eliminated if humans could develop a method of reproduction that doesn't require more involvement by women than by men in the process of continuing the human race. Turtles, for example, have done pretty well in this regard, as have salmon. Unfortunately either God or evolution, depending on one's point of view, has determined otherwise. Until we can devise effective mechanical wombs and infant care robots, we're stuck with what we have, and complaining about may be fun but seems pretty pointless.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-21-2008 01:49 PM

---

I've been thinking about this all day. I think the issue for me is academic freedom. Do we really care about truth, or not. Should Larry Sumners have been fired for expressing an idea in a closed door faculty meeting? An idea with a lot of scientific support? So much of science has become political. Global warming, for instance. Seems to me that the scientists should settle the argument, not the politicians.

When it comes to statistical differences in large groups of people what kind of conclusion is there to be drawn? If women have a slight advantage in verbal ability, does that negate all of the wonderful male authors, journalists, lawyers? I know too many women physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, architects to think that the statistics should have any bearing on the individual. I believe absolutely in equal opportunity. I just don't believe that will or should always result in equal outcome.

When it comes to women's past discrimination, yes, that was wrong. But to be fair, my father wanted to be a writer but felt compelled to become an accountant. How many men have given up their dreams in order to provide for their families?

[Peppermill]

I seem to have touched a maelstrom -- and I don't believe the participants are even the same as the last time the subject of boys and girls education was broached here.

As early as we are in history on "equality" -- as at least one writer (1) has suggested that even our language often has biases towards inequality and hierarchical relationships -- I suspect it will take humankind a while, if ever, to sort out the issues and the evidence.

One interesting tidbit that I have noticed is the differences in societal pressure and support for (older) women to return to or to stay in the work force. Because of their absence from earlier generations, even the networking available to men may not be as readily present. The pressures and expectations to divert skills to volunteer and community efforts can be greater. I do hope that shall change and I hypothesize that such changes may impact what future generations experience. It seems to me this is a dynamic system we are observing and tinkering.

(1) Non-Violent Communications by Marshall B. Rosenberg and Arun Gandhi.

---

Timbuktu1 wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:

. Biological 'involvement' by women during gestation and birth has perforce to be greater than that of men but various societies in the world have had different ways of coping with child care which involve men as much or even more than women. Men in some societies go through a kind of phantom pregnancy and birth ('couvade') and in the UK men have also experienced this .

---

Everyman wrote:
The family/work choice (problem or opportunity depending on how one sees it) would be eliminated if humans could develop a method of reproduction that doesn't require more involvement by women than by men in the process of continuing the human race. Turtles, for example, have done pretty well in this regard, as have salmon. Unfortunately either God or evolution, depending on one's point of view, has determined otherwise. Until we can devise effective mechanical wombs and infant care robots, we're stuck with what we have, and complaining about may be fun but seems pretty pointless.

---

---

I've been thinking about this all day. I think the issue for me is academic freedom. Do we really care about truth, or not. Should Larry Sumners have been fired for expressing an idea in a closed door faculty meeting? An idea with a lot of scientific support? So much of science has become political. Global warming, for instance. Seems to me that the scientists should settle the argument, not the politicians.

When it comes to statistical differences in large groups of people what kind of conclusion is there to be drawn? If women have a slight advantage in verbal ability, does that negate all of the wonderful male authors, journalists, lawyers? I know too many women physicists, chemists, mathematicians, engineers, architects to think that the statistics should have any bearing on the individual. I believe absolutely in equal opportunity. I just don't believe that will or should always result in equal outcome.

When it comes to women's past discrimination, yes, that was wrong. But to be fair, my father wanted to be a writer but felt compelled to become an accountant. How many men have given up their dreams in order to provide for their families?

---

[Haleyhill]

I'm so confused! I've never done a book club, let alone an online one. How do i officially join this one and if so when do we start reading the books, and will there be a list, and a finish date?

[IlanaSimons]

---

Haleyhill wrote:
I'm so confused! I've never done a book club, let alone an online one. How do i officially join this one and if so when do we start reading the books, and will there be a list, and a finish date?

---

Hi Haleyhilll,

Thanks for logging on.  You don't need to do anything to join the club.  In this club, I (the moderator--Ilana) post a "Journal Entry" each week--a short blog on some topic relating to"Literature and Life."  This is week 61 of the club--so at the fourth line from the top, you'll see a thread that reads "Ilana's Journal Week 61: Aristotle, Schadenfreude, and Us Weekly."  That's this week's essay.  You can click on it to see how people respond to the essay.  We just have dialogue around some topic each week, without any scheduled books to read. 

Other clubs at B&N do schedule books to read each month or so, so you might want to check them out.

Post again with any further questions.

I hope you stick around.

Ilana

[Everyman]

You might also point out, Ilana, that all your other essays are still posted and still open for comment, so Haleyhill can go back and read and comment on any of them.  Since posting to them will float those threads up toward the top, we can all see HH's comments and discuss them.   Sometimes the revisits to an old topic are just as interesting as the original discussions.

---

IlanaSimons wrote:

---

Haleyhill wrote:
I'm so confused! I've never done a book club, let alone an online one. How do i officially join this one and if so when do we start reading the books, and will there be a list, and a finish date?

---

Hi Haleyhilll,

Thanks for logging on.  You don't need to do anything to join the club.  In this club, I (the moderator--Ilana) post a "Journal Entry" each week--a short blog on some topic relating to"Literature and Life."  This is week 61 of the club--so at the fourth line from the top, you'll see a thread that reads "Ilana's Journal Week 61: Aristotle, Schadenfreude, and Us Weekly."  That's this week's essay.  You can click on it to see how people respond to the essay.  We just have dialogue around some topic each week, without any scheduled books to read. 

Other clubs at B&N do schedule books to read each month or so, so you might want to check them out.

Post again with any further questions.

I hope you stick around.

Ilana

---

[nhbooklover]

I'm so glad that I found my way over to the Barnes&Noble website. I always used to go to the Borders one because there is a store close to where I live, But this site is so much better. I never would have found all these people who are inerested in the same thing that I am: sitting and reading a great book.

 I don't know about anyone here, but I love the excitement you get when you go to a book store and find a book that sounds like it will be good, and going home and being just completely abosorbed by the story line that you totally block out whatever is going on around you. There's almost nothing that can compare to that!