|
Originally Posted by JKDS
Some interesting stats.
Chess has similar, tho different, social bias towards men. While there are female grandmasters, they make up only 2% of the 1400.
Nascar requires quick thinking, and is also male dominated, but a list of woman drivers on wiki shows none of them winning a single series.
Billiards is another thing, but instead of a nerdy subculture like chess/esports, its the 'hang out in a bar all day' culture. The game requires lots of precision, practice, and strategy. Still, while some women do compete professionally, there arent nearly as many as men.
Then you got the lower percentage of women in STEM fields, but those that get there have been capable of crushing it.
So idk. It seems more likely to me that women can certainly do these things and be competitive at them, but choose not to. I want to think its mostly social norm kinda stuff, but cant help but think that brain chemitry has some non-negligible effect.
I also want to point out that Danica Patrick would not have her job if she was not a woman. She is given better equipment than the majority of the field and consistently places in the bottom 10 percent. Her marketability is the only reason she has her job.
In chess, the only woman to be competitive with the top 100 men in the world was an experiment by her father who home schooled her (and her two sisters) and taught them chess (or rather, hired people to teach her chess) for her entire childhood. Neither of her sisters did anywhere near as well as she did. So even when she was raised in this crazy "train this chick to play chess from birth" environment, only 1 in 3 was able to be competitive with the top 100 men in the world.
|