|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I understand the gender differences in the way boys and girls relate to dinosaurs and paleontology, I wouldn't say that girls are more interested in science than boys overall. I've always found the opposite to be true: girls are more interested in language arts while boys are more interested in how things work. That's why boys build rockets and buy get chemistry sets for Christmas. At least, that's why I did those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i too was a little baffled by this. most of the women that i know aren't and never have been interested in dinos. as for science i can't really say. since i'm heavly attracted to women that are very intelligent. so most of my females friends are science.
but would say that the genders are most likely interest in different aspects of science. ie men/boys wanting to find out how things work. after all which gender typically takes apart and then tries to reasemble radios and stuff and a kid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My son and my nephew and I went to see JP III just last night and I got a different message than the author of the article, and I suspect that this "gender anthropologist" may have an agenda. The message my son took away was the "figuring out" of how to communicate/relate to species that had never before been encountered. He was impressed with something that the scientist (Dr. Alan Grant/Sam Neill) did near the end of the movie (that I will not reveal out of respect for those who have not seen it).
I assert that boys, as descended from hunters, may well be more interested in the tactics and strategies of these predatory creatures than their genealogy or diets or social structures. Not to diminish those things, but survival is as much a science as paleontology, and it is a science more attuned to the male brain.
Survival as a science was critical for most of the human species as recently as a couple hundred years ago, and when some catastrophic event besets humanity, it will, again, become critical. Most of the major technological breakthroughs on the planet were derived of a survival instinct, beginning with how to hunt a wooly mammoth to how to keep a satellite in a constant orbit to how to move information over a transparent plastic wire.
This article strives to minimize the value of the natural development of the masculine brain. It cites a tendency that has yet to be properly explored, and as such, it constitutes junk science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A very, very good point, frank_h. What's that old saying? "Necessity is the mother of invention?" I always felt Necessity should be the FATHER of invention, because over the course of human history the majority of inventors have been male. That's not to say women haven't invented/discovered some impressive stuff, too (Madame Curie is the only example that comes to mind right now). I do think you're correct, though, that this author and the sources in this piece more than likely have an agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the FATHER of invention should be the inventor himself (or helself when itīs a woman :-). There is different sides of this, but in a sence you are right, there a to few female inventors.
As for agandas:
Me and my friends was watching one of the american talk shows a couple of months ago and I saw something that really made me shake my head. The talk show was about three aledged racists and the thing that made be shake my head was when a black man in the audience stood up and said something like (I canīt remember the exakt words): "Donīt you know most of all the things you use in your life is invented by black people?". It really makes me sad when people feel the need to say to other people: "Donīt you know Iīm better than you?". One other interesting thing was that under the whole show, not one single evidence could be brought forward as to show that the three "racists" actually was racist.
I usually donīt watch talk shows, but I feel sorry for the people that watches them every day...
P.S
Sorry about my bad english.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What initially attracted me to dinosaurs as a child was the awesome scale and ferocious terror of the beasts, they really can spark one's imagination. This interest soon lead me to books covering anything and everything about dinosaurs. In a short time I became more knowledgeable about the history, nomenclature and morphology of dinosaurs than the adults in my life.
The article really makes no sense, and does not support any credible premise. My own experience is in complete contradiction to what the author of the article claims, as I completely researched the topic and enhanced my play-time with my newly found knowledge.
The author seems disappointed that Hollywood made a film aimed at boys without having some heroine in leather boots save the day... which seems to be a growing theme in today's movie production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The writer obviously had an agenda. I know it's a personal bias of mine, but anyone who quotes a "gender archaeologist" is right out to lunch to start with, IMHO.
Some of the observations were knock-me-down obvious: paleantology involves a lot of detailed record-keeping, and that's what girls gravitate toward. Ummm.... Duh! Girls have always been more comfortable with quiet study and detail, whereas boys are more rambunctious. Does this surprise anyone? This writer, however, makes it sound as though this means girls are more serious about dinosaurs, while boys are just playing.
In an attempt to cut through this crap (and yes, I'd label it "junk science", too), I offer the following as my interpretation of the thin evidence laid out in this article.
Boys have a more visceral, emotional response to dinosaurs than girls. They have this response because they are enchanted by dinosaurs. They love them. Some boys (and almost no girls) want to eat, live, and breathe dinosaurs. This is the kind of response that is the germ of lifelong passion. Boys get involved with dinosaurs, and they quite happily stomp around the house roaring. They like the biggest, fiercest, much-much-larger-than-life dinosaurs because that's what made these creatures different.
Girls are more methodical and intellectual about dinosaurs because they're as interested in dinosaurs are they are in anything else. This is also why they go off them shortly later. It's not "dinosaur geekiness", although that may be the reason they give. It's because they're not passionately consumed by dinosaurs and the grand vision that they represent. A few girls are... most are not.
On the other hand, take ballet. My two nieces were really taken by ballet. They pirouetted about the house, talked endlessly about ballet and dancers, and everything they wanted for Christmas and birthdays related to ballet.
As a boy, I took ballet. I was interested in it for a time, but no more interested in it than I was in anything else. I didn't dance around the house. I didn't talk about it with my friends. I just tried it, and then my interested shifted to other things.
Methinks that "gender archaeologists" start out with a preconceived notion of what they're going to find. And so, of course, they find it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At first blush, the article, "A herd of boyosauruses stomps into the theatre," by Joseph Brean does not appear to be exactly complimentary to boys.
The author quotes a "gender anthropologist" from Ontario who tries to explain some of the differences in the way girls and boys relate to dinosaurs. The theses tease the brain, but they seem to miss something crucial: boys' sense of
wonder about the world.
We see this over and over. Boys seem to like the direct experience of something, rather than to analyze the daylights out of it and develop elaborate theories. In classical Zen thinking and Christian mysticism, we need to transcend theories, ideas, and concepts in order to have a pure encounter with the direct experiences of life.
Boys' and men's tendencies to transcendence may explain some of the eloquent commentary Dr. Tom Campbell has offered us about men's experiences of music. We love it. We get psyched about it. We don't have to discuss it endlessly. We are looking for pure experience.
The author paints boys in a light that appears to minimize their intellectual capabilities. I would argue that boys are contacting a more direct experience of dinosaurs, a visceral and fun experience. Let the theories go. They limit
is.
This tendency of appreciating the direct experiences of life is a gift, a valuable asset. Rather than questioning boys for a non-intellectual approach, we need to teach girls and women the beauty of the direct experience. We can
share this with our sisters out of a spirit of generosity, as fellow travelers on the journey of life. Indeed, the direct experience is how we encounter God Himself!
Peace to all,
Steve Imparl
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
