000 04354cam a2200409 i 4500
001 21555725
005 20250130163409.0
008 200530s2020 nyua b 001 0 eng
906 _a7
_bcbc
_corignew
_d1
_eecip
_f20
_gy-gencatlg
925 0 _aacquire
_b1 shelf copy
_xpolicy default
955 _ecm07 2020-06-10 TW situational to Dewey
_wxm 07 2020-06-10 (TW situational)
_frm05 2023-06-12 to CMD
010 _a 2020014347
020 _a9781541646506
_q(hardcover)
020 _z9781541646513
_q(ebook)
040 _aLBSOR/DLC
_beng
_erda
_cDLC
042 _apcc
050 0 0 _aBF692.2
_b.C454 2020
082 0 0 _a155.3/3
_223
100 1 _aCheng, Eugenia,
_eauthor.
_931679
245 1 0 _ax + y :
_ba mathematician's manifesto for rethinking gender /
_cEugenia Cheng.
246 3 _ax plus y
250 _aFirst edition.
264 1 _aNew York :
_bBasic Books,
_c[2020]
300 _ax, 272 pages :
_billustrations ;
_c22 cm
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _aunmediated
_bn
_2rdamedia
338 _avolume
_bnc
_2rdacarrier
504 _aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505 0 _aThe difficulties of difference -- The problem with leaning in -- A new dimension -- Structures and society -- Leaning out -- Dreams for the future.
520 _a"Eugenia Cheng can't help thinking like a mathematician. She also can't help thinking like a woman. After all, she's both. But there seems like there must be a clear tension. She had to learn to be a mathematician, for one thing, and-in the popular imagination, anyway-mathematics seems very "male," the domain of individualistic geniuses with terrible social skills, pursuing university tenure and fame. Those traits, however, aren't really what it means to do math: as Cheng has shown through her three previous books, what it really means to think like a mathematician is to see past the distracting, superficial details of things to find their essences. When she turned that thinking upon gender, she found, there wasn't much essence to speak of at all. But what she did find there has become this book. At the heart of x + y are two concepts: not masculine or feminine, but what Cheng calls ingressive and congressive personalities. Ingressive people are competitive, independent, bold, risk-taking, self-assured, and often have one-track minds: these are the people Cheng worked with in high finance, the sort of people who might do well as surgeons or daredevils. Congressive people, on the other hand, focus on society and community, take the needs of others into account, emphasize interconnectedness, and tend to collaborate. As a society, we associate ingressive personalities with men and congressive personalities with women. And herein lies the problem-the source not just of gender inequality, but a great deal of individual unhappiness. When a mathematician like Cheng pursues the issue abstractly, she finds nothing uniquely male about ingression or female about congression. But she does find that, from standardized exams to Nobel prizes, society fundamentally rewards the ingressive, thereby forcing many people-including Cheng herself, one upon a time-to learn and practice a suite of behaviors that they might not have otherwise. To Cheng, it would be a failure to think that a bunch of bad-ass female CEOs would represent true progress, or that the world will be better when men get in touch with their feminine side, because both those scenarios are predicated on faulty premises and bad abstractions. x + y is a call to action, offering a vision of how we can use the power of abstraction to make the world less competitive, that is, more congressive, and to solve gender inequality, not by encouraging men to be less aggressive, or women to be more, but by realizing that-once you start thinking about the problem like a mathematician-it becomes clear that most of what we ascribe to gender has nothing to do with gender at all"--
_cProvided by publisher.
650 0 _aSex differences (Psychology)
_xResearch
_xMethodology.
_931680
650 0 _aSex role
_xResearch
_xMethodology.
_931681
650 0 _aSocial sciences
_xMathematical models.
_931682
650 0 _aCategories (Mathematics)
_931683
650 0 _aMathematics
_xSocial aspects.
_931684
985 _aLBSORCIP
_d2020-06-30
999 _c10710
_d10710