Women in STEM

[Architect]

There's been a movement to "get women into STEM" (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) for decades. I remember physicists bemoaning how few women go into Physics back when I was in school. And guess what? The few women who did and were mildly successful had wonderful opportunities! Way more than I did as a mere male.

Sour grapes? Not at all. I support the idea in the abstract, but I think it's one of those misguided horses that everybody flogs. Here's a video from yesterday about this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrXarTh77EA

Don't misunderstand, I fully support women in engineering. As I do men, cats, dogs and AI's. However I think we do a disservice by the continued lip service to "get more women into STEM". Maybe women have a good reason NOT to get into it.

Consider Prometheus who represents Science. I think women are smarter than this, only men are stupid enough to do something as hard and unforgiving as STEM. What happens to the women who go into it? In my experience they most often quickly rise up into management.

Discuss ...

(wups, I accidentally put a "Yes" vote when I meant to put a "No", so take that into account in the results above)

 

[TimeAsylums]

peter principle

yeah stay in the kitchen

tune in next week for "how to end women's suffrage"

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I don't understand why grading and hiring aren't done completely anonymously. Number all applications.

 

[Base groove]

Aren't women people?

What do "we" give them? Opportunities to work in "our" work force?

I don't FUCKING think so.

 

[Ada]

This article.


When you say anonymous, what parts of the application are you referring to?

And interviews - testing social response.

 

[Latte]

I don't understand why grading and hiring aren't done completely anonymously. Number all applications.

People do truly like and find comfort in their biases. Without the possibility to apply them due to not knowing about some category someone can be put in that enables the usage of the bias, so much would be unknown and scary. So much less a feeling of having a "complete picture", even in cases where they are aware a more accurate one would be derived in the absence of certain knowledge.


Tangent:
There was an amusing study done in Norway where the same papers were graded significantly more poorly based on whether the name was one associated with lower socioeconomic status or higher socioeconomic status.

 

[BigApplePi]

When specialty groups start out a certain way they can bond according to some important trait outside of that specialty. This creates a culture hard for those who are different to break into. The best way to break into a semi-closed culture like this is to send in the best ... that is, virtue of sufficient rank can overcome tradition. Once breaking this barrier, it can be like a hole in a dike: More will be let in. A certain threshold quality has to be achieved so either an additional culture is formed (bad) or a new group is strong enough to fight off the prejudice (good).

 

[~~~]

I think the issue is a little broader. That is, English cultures (it is harder for me to speak for more distant cultures) tend to condition females to be more F and males to be more T. If you have this happening systematically then the lack of females in STEM is just a fait accompli. This is a socio-cultural issue. Writing a law or whatever will not change the situation. It needs action by the many concerned to change their own behaviour on an everyday basis. (As an aside, I also think that a more general interest in STEM would be advanced by having specialists teach STEM subjects in school and not generalists. For example, having someone who has done an undergraduate maths degree teach maths to senior high school students rather than having someone who has done a more generalist teaching degree teach maths. My understanding is that this is rarer presently.)

 

[Polaris]

^ Yup, that too.

I think women are smarter than this, only men are stupid enough to do something as hard and unforgiving as STEM.

What if these women simply just want to have a career in research, or have a genuine interest in science? What if some women thrive on the challenge? Would women not be driven by the same interests as men?

If women end up in management, surely it's by their own choice. Women aren't just mindless things that get pushed into roles -- they may be there because they actually wanted to be there.

Personally I have zero interest in management. I have been offered and encouraged to go in the direction of managerial roles, but I steer clear of them as my goal is research. I don't think women are offered better opportunities, I think it is more that they are perhaps better socially equipped to become managers as society conditions them that way. That does not mean they all want to do management as a career.

However, I do agree that all applications should be merit-based; gender and other such physical attributes are irrelevant. Whenever I have competed for or accepted jobs, it has been purely based on merit, so I cannot relate to the "easier for women" notion.

 

[Pyropyro]

Uh what's with the divide? I simply call them researchers or inventors regardless of gender.

I enjoy working with both genders at my University. They both present a wide variety of tech and creations that can help people and earn the University some royalties at the side.

I believe that rather than focusing on encouraging females to join STEM, why not encourage males and children as well? If they don't like STEM then we just let them follow what their passion really lies in.

 

[Grayman]

If it was about getting more men there would be an uproar. Why not women!!!!!


Everyone over compensates. I don't believe in woman rights, men rights, black rights, white rights, gay rights, hetero rights. I only believe in human rights. The only way we will reach a point where we have completely equal human rights is when we stop grouping people.

 

[Grayman]

The question is kind of confusing since it is beneficial for both male and female. No one has to go but this way they know about it as being a choice.

If there is some greater benefit to woman than men in going into STEM then there is a problem further in the system.

 

[Pyropyro]

If it was about getting more men there would be an uproar. Why not women!!!!!

Women aren't made of lace. They can succeed or suffer on their own. What we should focus on is fixing the traditional mindsets so that at least we have a more level playing field.

 

[BigApplePi]

In watching Architect's link again, I'm wondering if these are the STEM women we are talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrXarTh77EA

As a male I see some of those women as thinking and some feelers. Am I projecting my prejudices onto them already or is there just not enough information?

Do we need a corresponding 1M 40S for STEM men or what?

 

[Architect]

As a male I see some of those women as thinking and some feelers. Am I projecting my prejudices onto them already or is there just not enough information?

Yes, you get the prize. According to MBTI 75% of all women are F types. Do we want to encourage them to go into STEM? Not really.

Doesn't this show our inherent bias towards Thinking versus Feeling activities? Why aren't we having a program to encourage men to go into the Humanities?

 

[redbaron]

As far as I can tell, the reason for programs like this is because of the perception that gender-based discrimination still happens in all sorts of ways. As a result people will try to come up with ways to circumvent the issue, by implementing programs that provide a benefit for the disadvantaged group (in this case women).

If 50% of women are denied certain positions on the basis of being female, perhaps allowing a set number of female applicants easier acceptance (say 25%) helps to counter this bias.

Whether or not I agree with programs like this is case specific. Sometimes it's positive, sometimes negative (unnecessary, waste of resources) although I do understand the basic premise, that equal opportunity varies between individuals.

Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it is just for PR reasons as well.

 

[Architect]

What if these women simply just want to have a career in research, or have a genuine interest in science? What if some women thrive on the challenge? Would women not be driven by the same interests as men?

Exactly! Some are, most aren't in my experience.

Should we be encouraging women who aren't interested in science to go into it anyhow? I think that highlights the inherent bias toward science and against other things you might be interested in, such as the humanities, civil service or even homemaking which is at the bottom of the list. Further, for women who are interested in science and have the abilities as I said there are enormous opportunities waiting for them.

As an engineer you get pushed into supporting these programs whether you like it or not. At my job they started a program called "bring a girl to work day". The idea was to encourage young girls to get into engineering. Of course people pointed out the bias in this and I could we bring our sons to work after all? So then it morphed into the "bring your son or daughter to work day", and so on that day you see a lot of sons and daughters tiredly following their fathers around and looking rather bored.

My INTP friends wife is an engineer and is constantly getting him to support these kinds of things. The other day he had to go to have girls in engineering program at a local school and give a talk. Afterwards there is some kind of lab session and he could barely get them to understand how to wire up a lightbulb. I'm not kidding here, these are seventh and eighth graders and they couldn't figure out how to wire up a lightbulb.

If women end up in management, surely it's by their own choice. Women aren't just mindless things that get pushed into roles -- they may be there because they actually wanted to be there .... I don't think women are offered better opportunities, I think it is more that they are perhaps better socially equipped to become managers as society conditions them that way. That does not mean they all want to do management as a career.

I agree, and that's exactly my point. Except that in my experience it is true that there are more opportunities for women, especially in advanced education programs (PhD programs) and management tracks.

Whenever I have competed for or accepted jobs, it has been purely based on merit, so I cannot relate to the "easier for women" notion.

Many things have changed. I can entirely believe that as the world has become more democratic in the last few decades. However, while the line has always been that all opportunities are pure merit-based, the reality is a little bit different.

 

[BigApplePi]

In looking at myself, I attended a seminar two days ago on an entirely different non-STEM topic, I wonder what prejudices I am experiencing? Two women come to mind. One was a thinker. She said "most of my friends are men." She was right. I immediately felt an interest in her ... for thinking. She would definitely be STEM eligible. Yet another women said, "my girlfriend ... we are friends for life", was a total feeler. I would be highly suspicious for her in STEM. But both of these people were women. Must I note that and how soon would I forget it? One women was more attractive (sexually) than the other. Does that bring a bias to the situation or would it eventually pass?

 

[Cherry Cola]

In an ideal world women would not be encouraged to get into STEM, nor would there be something called "womens rights" because we wouldn't group people. But we don't live in no ideal world and women aren't treated fairly so what's the problem with this? Sure enouraging women to get into STEM specifically might be stupid. But there's few specific cases which couldn't be stupid and women were only to be encouraged into male dominant professions which would be 100% smart then we'd get nowhere . I think you have to look at the overall goal with this sort of thing.

and +1 on THD

 

[BigApplePi]

In an ideal world ... we wouldn't group people.

But we do ... because that's the first thing we see.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes, hence the need for women in STEM.

 

[Grayman]

In an ideal world women would not be encouraged to get into STEM, nor would there be something called "womens rights" because we wouldn't group people. But we don't live in no ideal world and women aren't treated fairly so what's the problem with this?

Giving them extra in one area because they suffer from somehting else does help anyone solve the real issue. The question that has yet to be answered is why are there are not a lot of women in STEM.

Perhaps it is preference naturally occurring in the womans mind. Perhaps it is a diversification at childhood that has pushed woman into liking other things. It is obvious that it is not because they are not accepted in this field.

We always create new problems by dealing with the symptoms instead of solving the source of the problem. When people get sick do they only continue to treat the symptoms or do they find a cure?
The world may not be ideal and the cure may not work, but do we not try?

 

[Duxwing]

Having done all of STEM and experienced all the recent STEM-push, I can say that all my science classes were gender-equal except AP Chemistry, which had a few more guys than girls. My Engineering classes and FIRST program were almost all-male, with about four girls in the latter; three of those four did marketing, business, or safety.

Culture is important. From birth, girls are given magic and babies whereas boys are given technology and enemies. If this culture is unchanged, then we will continue to see its results on child care, the humanities, engineering, and the military. Biology obviously should also be considered--e.g., what if people who have more testosterone than estrogen, on average, inherently enjoy engineering more and therefore further pursue it?--lest we should forever attempt to force people to act against their natures.

The problem ultimately should not be reduced to "MORE GIRLS!" lest it should become some tired slogan.

-Duxwing

 

[Etheri]

I'm a master student, I have no work experience.

The thing that stands out to me most in women in engineering, is that they're almost all sensors. Most of them hardworking and driven. They don't care about technology in particular, but they're willing to put in a lot more time and effort towards their goals than a lot of males. As far as I see it, this just makes them better at certain tasks and worse at others.

the majority of them aren't driven by their love for technology. The majority of them are driven to 'make it', to do themselves good in life. They're following the ideals they were taught. The same goes for a majority of males, but there's definitely more males who are in engineering because of a general interest in technology.

In the entire engineering department, there's about 85% males 15% females. Among the chemical engineers, this is closer to 60 / 40. (Which is the most, least females for mechanical and electrotechnic engineering) I should have statistics for the students from the last year or so somewhere if someone wants them. Note that bio-engineers and bio-medical degrees are in a seperate faculty, so they don't count to these stats. There's alot of females in bio-engineering (compared to our faculty), but I don't have stats for them.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Giving them extra in one area because they suffer from somehting else does help anyone solve the real issue. The question that has yet to be answered is why are there are not a lot of women in STEM.

Perhaps it is preference naturally occurring in the womans mind. Perhaps it is a diversification at childhood that has pushed woman into liking other things. It is obvious that it is not because they are not accepted in this field.

We always create new problems by dealing with the symptoms instead of solving the source of the problem. When people get sick do they only continue to treat the symptoms or do they find a cure?
The world may not be ideal and the cure may not work, but do we not try?

What is the source of the problem then and how would you treat that? Why are there not a lot of women in STEM? Perhaps, maybe, albeit; what if? You make my point for me here by resorting to skepticism. Until we know exactly what to do for sure we should do nothing, nevermind that on a larger scale it kinda makes sense to try and break up social barriers and gender roles.. no lets not because we might make a mistake in the process and how awful would that not be! How dire the consequences!

Oh and yeah: actually treating symptoms tends to be how you end up finding a cure and it's what you should always do for the sake of any patient if you lack one.

 

[Duxwing]

What is the source of the problem then and how would you treat that? Why are there not a lot of women in STEM? Perhaps, maybe, albeit; what if? You make my point for me here by resorting to skepticism. Until we know exactly what to do for sure we should do nothing, nevermind that on a larger scale it kinda makes sense to try and break up social barriers and gender roles.. no lets not because we might make a mistake in the process and how awful would that not be! How dire the consequences!

Oh and yeah: actually treating symptoms tends to be how you end up finding a cure and it's what you should always do for the sake of any patient if you lack one.

If we reacted to whatever phenomenon we intuited might be due to social injustice, we would exhaust our resources: demanding immediate action is hasty.

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes but that's not what I was proposing either. Stop reading and comprehending without regard for context.

 

[redbaron]

Oh and yeah: actually treating symptoms tends to be how you end up finding a cure and it's what you should always do for the sake of any patient if you lack one.

Well, not really. Treating symptoms often complicates the process of finding a cure because it alters the environment in such a way that the, "sickness" is less obvious.

Under programs like Women in STEM, you could end up with what on the surface appears to be a balanced situation - where equal amounts of both men and women are featured. Yet number values in and of themselves don't imply that an issue is fixed, or do anything to treat any underlying causes.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes but that's not what I was proposing either.

It is the necessary generalization of what you proposed: put women into STEM because the current gender ratio seems socially unjust.

-Duxwing

 

[Architect]

Well, not really. Treating symptoms often complicates the process of finding a cure because it alters the environment in such a way that the, "sickness" is less obvious.

Under programs like Women in STEM, you could end up with what on the surface appears to be a balanced situation - where equal amounts of both men and women are featured. Yet number values in and of themselves don't imply that an issue is fixed, or do anything to treat any underlying causes.

Precisely, thank you, now that leads us to the following.

Let's narrow the discussion a bit then, are we missing the real issue (the 'sickness') by pushing women into STEM?

What is the real issue? Is it an issue?

 

[Cherry Cola]

It is the necessary generalization of what you proposed: put women into STEM because the current gender ratio seems socially unjust.

-Duxwing

Yes, as I said I'm not sure it's really a good idea to get women into STEM, but I can see why they want them to. There are almost always people questioning whether its a good idea or not to get women into this or that male-dominated area. IMO it's worth trying it out, we need to explore what gender is how much it matters and what we can do with it.

@Redbaron: True, though in this case it's more like the disease is gender inequality and the patient can't die only suffer, hence why it might be good in itself to keep trying different medications slowly curing the disease step by step by finding things that work here and there and in the meantime discarding that which doesn't.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes, as I said I'm not sure it's really a good idea to get women into STEM, but I can see why they want them to. There are almost always people questioning whether its a good idea or not to get women into this or that male-dominated area. IMO it's worth trying it out, we need to explore what gender is how much it matters and what we can do with it.

Oh. If we want data, then sociological ethics dictate we should experiment on samples, not society.

@Redbaron: True, though in this case it's more like the disease is gender inequality and the patient can't die only suffer, hence why it might be good in itself to keep trying different medications slowly curing the disease step by step by finding things that work here and there and in the meantime discarding that which doesn't.

Gender may not always be the fundamental cause; e.g., average men have 6.5x more grey matter than average women, who have 9.5x more white matter than average men. If having more grey matter eases decision making, then ceteris paribus males should in proportion to the grey matter disproportion predominate in decision-making fields.

-Duxwing

 

[Polaris]

Hm, I wanted to respond to Archie about the possible underlying social reasons why women are encouraged into these programs (I have too much information which is why I'll leave this to later), but Duxwing's above info got me more curious. Here is why:

"Sex-related differences in behavior are extensive, but their neuroanatomic substrate is unclear. Indirect perfusion data have suggested a higher percentage of gray matter (GM) in left hemisphere cortex and in women, but differences in volumes of the major cranial compartments have not been examined for the entire brain in association with cognitive performance.

We used volumetric segmentation of dual echo (proton density and T2-weighted) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in healthy volunteers (40 men, 40 women) age 18–45. Supertentorial volume was segmented into GM, white matter (WM), and CSF. We confirmed that women have a higher percentage of GM, whereas men have a higher percentage of WM and of CSF. These differences sustained a correction for total intracranial volume. In men the slope of the relation between cranial volume and GM paralleled that for WM, whereas in women the increase in WM as a function of cranial volume was at a lower rate.

In men the percentage of GM was higher in the left hemisphere, the percentage of WM was symmetric, and the percentage of CSF was higher in the right. Women showed no asymmetries. Both GM and WM volumes correlated moderately with global, verbal, and spatial performance across groups. However, the regression of cognitive performance and WM volume was significantly steeper in women."

Here is the interesting part:

"Because GM consists of the somatodendritic tissue of neurons whereas WM comprises myelinated connecting axons, the higher percentage of GM makes more tissue available for computation relative to transfer across distant regions. This could compensate for smaller intracranial space in women. Sex difference in the percentage and asymmetry of the principal cranial tissue volumes may contribute to differences in cognitive functioning."

This might suggest that it's not necessarily weight/size of brain that matters for cognitive processing as much as how the brain is structured and the efficiency of microstructure patterns.

Thus, one could suggest women do indeed have smaller brains, but because of the way the connections are laid out, they are just as efficient, if not more efficient in processing.


From here.

Edit: This is interesting too: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr07/teenage.aspx

 

[Anktark]

Haven't read the whole thread, since I am short on time at the moment, but I think it's a good idea to get whoever wants into STEM; man, women or otherwise. Also, I don't agree with STEM being "hard and unforgiving"- it's not a labour/concentration camp. Let's not push anyone into STEM forcibly, that would be a bad idea.

 

[Architect]

Thus, one could suggest women do indeed have smaller brains, but because of the way the connections are laid out, they are just as efficient

No, it has nothing to do with brain size. We know that there is a correlation of brain size and "intelligence" (loosely defined) but no causation. Further, gross neuronal brain structure doesn't matter. We actually have the highest number of neuronal connections at age 3, by age 5-6 they've been vastly pruned down, at which time we are much more highly developed. I don't think you'll find the answer by looking at how many neurons, and at any rate high intelligence isn't a prerequisite to do well in STEM.

It's simpler than that in my opinion. People know that men are driven by their biology, we make jokes about how men have to have lots of sex. People don't talk much about women. From a lifetime of observing women at many ages I think it's clear that women are far more controlled by their biology than men are. Further, MBTI tells us (and it's obvious) that 75% of women are F types.

Like it or not, evolution has rigged the game against women, far more than against men. Men have a short term commitment to biology (just gotta have sex), women have a long term (bear and raise a child). I think this predisposes women against STEM.

If true then the question is should we so actively proselytize women to get into STEM? Doesn't that send the message that we think STEM is more important than anything else you'd care to do?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Men's biology forces them to be restless and to seek out any and all ways to prove themselves. I don't see how you can logically say that they are any less controlled by their biology unless you rig what controls means against women. IE acting the way men do is natural whereas women just act the way they do because they are controlled by their biology. Getting into STEM is not something men do because of their biology they do it because they are free to but women can't because their biology says no.

FYI I completely agree with the fact that men get into shit which looks boring on the surface like STEM because they make short term commitments and they can afford risk-taking since if they pull it off they might get to mate multiple times. But really it's the same thing that causes men to spend tons of time researching subjects of interest online, spend hours discussing things online, getting pissed while reading the newspapers, being aggressive.. etc etc. I mean there are plenty of downsides which men are unable to control so how are they any less controlled by their biology?

To answer your last question are really proselytizing so much as we are simply encouraging? I don't see the problem with the latter it doesn't send no such message.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Oh. If we want data, then sociological ethics dictate we should experiment on samples, not society.
-Duxwing

Which would be done how exactly? And what is it that makes the "experiment" unethical?

 

[redbaron]

It's simpler than that in my opinion. People know that men are driven by their biology, we make jokes about how men have to have lots of sex.

Culture-specific.

I think women are just as sex obsessed as men if not more - it's just taboo and, "not lady like" to talk about it. As opposed to men who are practically expected to brag about sexual exploits

People don't talk much about women. From a lifetime of observing women at many ages I think it's clear that women are far more controlled by their biology than men are.

Don't agree. I think it's actually the opposite. Men generally seem to have just as poor self-awareness of just how culturally brainwashed they actually are. They're controlled by cultural ideals without even realizing it.

Possibly even moreso than women.

Further, MBTI tells us (and it's obvious) that 75% of women are F typrs.

Culture-specific and influenced. MBTI isn't globally standardized. I'm reluctant to believe many of the statistics revolving around the population density of types. Especially given there's a lot of variation between sources.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Like it or not, evolution has rigged the game against women, far more than against men. Men have a short term commitment to biology (just gotta have sex), women have a long term (bear and raise a child). I think this predisposes women against STEM.

If true then the question is should we so actively proselytize women to get into STEM? Doesn't that send the message that we think STEM is more important than anything else you'd care to do?

Evolution is a woman's game. Men think they're important based on the free time they gain from being disposable.

So you're saying STEM isn't important?

Also, do the following conflict?:

high intelligence isn't a prerequisite to do well in STEM.

75% of women are F types.

 

[Polaris]

No, it has nothing to do with brain size.

I think that was already implied in my above statement.

We know that there is a correlation of brain size and "intelligence" (loosely defined) but no causation. Further, gross neuronal brain structure doesn't matter. We actually have the highest number of neuronal connections at age 3, by age 5-6 they've been vastly pruned down, at which time we are much more highly developed. I don't think you'll find the answer by looking at how many neurons, and at any rate high intelligence isn't a prerequisite to do well in STEM.

The study above suggests structure does matter.

Yes, neuronal connections are trimmed down, but this has nothing to do with the point regarding female/male brain structure.

I wasn't looking at the number of neurons, I was pointing to structure.

I did not state high intelligence as a prerequisite for doing well in STEM. I was addressing Duxwing's point about male/female GM ratios.

It's simpler than that in my opinion. People know that men are driven by their biology, we make jokes about how men have to have lots of sex. People don't talk much about women. From a lifetime of observing women at many ages I think it's clear that women are far more controlled by their biology than men are. Further, MBTI tells us (and it's obvious) that 75% of women are F types.

It is not that simple, as the study above indicates.

The phenomenon of men talking about sex more than women is an assumption from a male perspective (and some women who may come from more traditional social backgrounds). I may as well say the same thing based on my perspective: women talk more about sex than men. Either statement may be true or false depending on culture/experience/personal bias/social group composition, etc, etc.

Even if that was the case, that men do talk more about sex, it does not imply that women aren't just as preoccupied with sex. I mean, men have to be manly, right? So they must talk about sex to show it. Cultural conditioning has taught women to be less explicit, however (we can thank the church for that) What goes on in their minds needs to be assessed by observation and extensive surveying across many cultures, and then perhaps, can we make more definite statements about male/female sex preoccupation. Also, your observations are based on a culture different to others. Keep that in mind.

If we are going to have a discussion based on personal experience, we may as well give up now. Making generalisations based on one's own subjective framework is not very scientific.

Also, the F-types in the video above reveal very strong and confident subjects. I don't see why being an 'F-type' should be an obstacle to getting into STEM; in fact, I think we need more F-types in STEM as they seem better equipped to deal with the more ethical sides of research methods, particularly in areas such as medicine and animal research.

Like it or not, evolution has rigged the game against women, far more than against men. Men have a short term commitment to biology (just gotta have sex), women have a long term (bear and raise a child). I think this predisposes women against STEM.

That is not an argument against women going into STEM. Evolution is a constant, and roles are slowly changing. One could even argue that the human preoccupation with women's rights is an evolutionary vector. It is part of what we call progress. If a woman chooses to go into STEM, it is probably because she actually wants to. Yes, she might make the sacrifice of having less opportunities for family building, but many women now choose careers over family life. This is not 'unnatural' as it is as much part of human progress as any other aspect of human evolution.

Personally, I wish I had been in a STEM program because my social indoctrination that women aren't wired for hard sciences almost took away my confidence. My own mother (who ironically happens to have a calculator for a brain and is something of a maths freak) told me that girls don't do well in maths, for example. Perhaps she was trying to protect me, I don't know. My maths teacher mocked the girls openly in class as being less inclined to understand the concepts -- all the while attempting to get into one of the girls pants during a school camp. During my school days I was constantly fed crap from males in my school that girls can't do maths and should stay at home and cook, etc. Luckily I did not listen to them, but after a while doubt does start to haunt one's rational faculties. It is called social indoctrination of gender stereotypes.

I think these factors greatly contributed to put me off going for a science career, but through sheer will I got my confidence back and put myself through it. And guess what? Because I wanted to.

For the above reasons, there have been studies attempting to get to the core issues of why women are discouraged, and how this could be amended:

There are studies that show girls do much better academically when segregated from boys, and vice versa. Please see links below.

http://www.gsa.uk.com/news/institute-of-physics-stats-prove-that-girls-only-i/


The cultural differences seem to be evident here:

All-Subject Achievement Test Scores

Traditionally, all-subject achievement test scores have been defined as scores indicating the composite mastery of specific skills or scholastic content areas (i.e., mathematics, verbal, science, etc.) acquired overa restricted span of time (Murphy and Davidshofer,2001). Of the nine studies that examined the relationship between type of school and overall all-subject achievement test scores, six (67percent) reported results supporting SS schooling, two (22 percent) found null results, and one (11 percent) reported results supporting coeducation. When comparing SS and CE for girls, five of eight (63 percent) studies reported results supporting SS schooling, one study (13 percent) reported null effects,and two studies (25 percent)reported results supporting CE. When comparing SS and CE for boys, three of four studies (75 percent) reported evidence in favor of single-sex schooling and one (25 percent) reported null results. All nine studies examined the impact of single-sex schooling versus coeducation using high school samples. Only Garcia (1998) and Riordan(1990) examined the relationship between ethnicity (African American, Asian, or white) and SS schooling versus coeducation. Despite finding differences favoring coeducation for all three groups, the author reports null differences between SS and CE students when controlling for preexisting differences among African Americans and Asians. In the case of white students, the differences remain even after controlling for preexisting differences.
Riordan (1990) did report significant difference among whites, African American, and Hispanic students in SS schools and those in coed schools."

Source

If true then the question is should we so actively proselytize women to get into STEM? Doesn't that send the message that we think STEM is more important than anything else you'd care to do?

Proselytize is a strong word. The program is there for a reason. Many women feel discouraged from entering male dominated fields right from childhood; programs like these may help those individuals who have lost their confidence.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Proselytize is a strong word. The program is there for a reason. Many women feel discouraged from entering male dominated fields right from childhood; programs like these may help those individuals who have lost their confidence.

Precisely, it is assumed that things are as they should be now. Just as it is assumed that men are less controlled by their biology because the way men act is the standard from which of course ,on average, women deviate from.

How many women are there really out there who feel pressured to work in STEM because they are proselytized? :S

 

[BigApplePi]

STEM 4 Women

Thread thoughts:

1. P: The sexes are different and are identifiable.
2. J: STEM should be encouraged for women.

Why? Because there are two ways to go into or not go into STEM, qualified or not: natural according to natural disposition. Pressure one way or the other due to cultural norms.

By making STEM known and acceptable for women, STEM will benefit by greater exposure to the general populace instead of just one half. Encouragement will at first result in some wrong female choices, but that is because new cultural norms have yet to be set up. At some point women in STEM will get to know themselves and this will result in more natural future choices.

This procedure can be generalized for all socially integrative activities: men/women, light skinned/dark skinned, religious/non religious, even poor/rich. But how many are aware of this?

 

[Duxwing]

I think we should also consider the long term: how will we objectively know when this problem is solved?

-Duxwing

 

[Latte]

I think we should also consider the long term: how will we objectively know when this problem is solved?

-Duxwing

It depends on how one defines the problem. If one defines the problem as there being gender based cultural barriers towards following a path one would be happy with and capable of, then it can be regarded as solved enough for efforts to solve it to be stopped when one does not find sufficient evidence of these cultural barriers persisting, regardless of the actual outcome (as in, regardless of how many % of STEM people identify as female). The barriers have to be defined beforehand and if people are to be convinced and one is to have an algorithm for scaling down or stopping efforts, there needs to be a definition of when they are no longer impactful enough to bother with.

If one defines the problem as that there should be close to 50% of males and females in STEM, regardless of any rationale, then the "problem" might never get solved... because who knows what the true ideal ratio is when it comes to individual satisfaction and maximizing the potential harvesting of the skill of the populace for the fields.

As far as I understand, most people in this thread and most intellectuals don't aim for such as a relative magnitude aesthetic ideal in itself, but rather think that less disparity between the amount of females and males in STEM will serve to undermine the aforementioned cultural realities and thus create a better environment for individuals to not be discouraged by irrational overgeneralizing cultural aspects in the long run through a sorts of exposure therapy for the culture in regards to women working in STEM.

Even hard-handed schemes such as affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws or % quota schemes tend to be touted as justified along those lines, and however anti-individualistic and discriminatory they have been, I can't deny that they have worked for that purpose, at least where I live (Norway). Whether it is soft-efforts such as those initially talked about in the thread, or hard-efforts such as quota, it is the state playing a role in the cultural-cognitive "upbringing"(shaping) of its populace, with broads strokes that do have some negative side effects. I think, for a lot of people, this can be very uncomfortable to think about. That a vision of how culture should be like and essentially how people should or shouldn't think about things is imposed. From a utilitarian view, though, it has merits.... but only insofar as the specific measures imposed serve the greater wellbeing of the populace of course.

Considering everything said in this thread and... uh... intuition and previous understanding, it does seem to me likely that soft-options such as opinion, view shaping and positive exposure of females in STEM has a net positive indirect effect on reducing the cultural traits that are targeted for reduction, if only mainly through the increase of women daring to go into STEM, their achievements, social integration and the field sociosphere's exposure to them (hard options may cause relatively strong backlash depending on the specific culture... at least in theory).

 

[BigApplePi]

I think we should also consider the long term: how will we objectively know when this problem is solved? -Duxwing

Baseball used to have a color barrier for players. This no longer is as strong except for management (must be verified). Answer: IMHO when a person in STEM is no longer sexually typed.

 

[StevenM]

I'm not sure how much value this opinion is worth here. I have a friend who is a female INTJ, and she has worked quite a few years as a system analyst. From what I know, she is very competent in the field, and has lots of experience and knowledge with science and technology.

In my opinion, perhaps the ecology of the workplace could use some variety in gender.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Culture-specific.

I think women are just as sex obsessed as men if not more - it's just taboo and, "not lady like" to talk about it. As opposed to men who are practically expected to brag about sexual exploits

Really?

Perhaps women are more/equally sex obsessed and don't act on it or express it(for whatever reason). But I think the real stereotypical difference is that men have different or lowered standards than women, not that they want more sex.

 

[Latte]

She secretly wants to fuck them in the bathroom. Both of them. At once. Soaked in carbonated beverage and the condiment between the buns of her hamburger.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Perhaps women are more/equally sex obsessed and don't act on it or express it(for whatever reason). But I think the real stereotypical difference is that men have different or lowered standards than women, not that they want more sex.

Again it's men setting the standards. Wanting and thinking about sex is limited to desiring copulation because that's how men think about sex. Men probably think more about sex than women by quite a wide margin, but are they sexual beings too a higher degree? That depends entirely on what definition you use, and of course the definition which is the norm is based solely on the male perspective.

Men have a monopoly on so many terms, women are defined and described by how the measure up relative to men.

 

[Duxwing]

Baseball used to have a color barrier for players. This no longer is as strong except for management (must be verified). Answer: IMHO when a person in STEM is no longer sexually typed.

Please clarify.

-Duxwing