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.
I don't think it matters whether copulation is involved or not as long as it's sexual. What definitions/standards of sex or types of sexual activity are you implying women would be more inclined towards, then?
Men have a monopoly on so many terms, women are defined and described by how the measure up relative to men.
Agreed, which is why I support equal respect/circumstances and think it should be differentiated from equal treatment/expectations. Equal treatment or expectations ignores the fact that not all people are born the same(whether by gender, sex, race, height, strength, etc) and demands that two individuals be able to perform at the same capacity in a competitive socioeconomy like capitalism.
We don't just need educational campaigns for women in STEM fields but for all other possible careers that an individual, whether boy or girl, might like because people have different personalities, skills and talents.
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.
Well, thanks for verifying exactly the culturally influenced behaviours I was talking about.
There's girls who really would go and fuck someone in a bathroom by the way, just as there's guys who wouldn't. Like I said the standards of overtly sexual behaviour are culture-specific and influenced.
Well, thanks for verifying exactly the culturally influenced behaviours I was talking about.
There's girls who really would go and fuck someone in a bathroom by the way, just as there's guys who wouldn't. Like I said the standards of overtly sexual behaviour are culture-specific and influenced.
I've missed such discussions as this one and apologize for neglecting your post.
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.
To boil down the point: the problem is solved when sexism directly or indirectly discourages too many women from STEM. Our justification seems partly utilitarian and partly deontological: sexism creates undesirable outcomes and follows not from data.
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.
A hard solution could 'crack' the sexism and allow society to 'shake it loose' in the solution's aftermath. A hard solution also causes anti-sexism efforts to seem shrill and irrelevant where sexism is subtle.
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.
I think that "lot of people" is right about our intentions, which should not be so specific as "STEM" but as abstract as 'reason' because the specific can follow from the abstract, easing our correction and recording of our judgment; if sexism is irrational and spreading reason our intention, then the thoughts of people holding it are fallacies to be corrected like any others. More importantly, our thoughts therefore are also open to being changed; e.g., were some rationic inequalities justified.
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).
I agree and think we should focus on engineering because were it equalized, then my FIRST Robotics team would have had more than one girl do engineering.
Originally Posted by BigApplePi 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.
You asked, I believe, about when the issue of women in STEM will be solved. There is no more a color barrier for baseball players. Commonly, when a baseball player is thought of, his color which used to be noted, no longer hardly comes to mind. Similarly when whether or not a person in STEM is thought of only for their competence and not which sex they happen to belong to, the problem will not longer exist. We do not know how long this will take. Issues about getting there are the topic if this thread.
You asked, I believe, about when the issue of women in STEM will be solved. There is no more a color barrier for baseball players. Commonly, when a baseball player is thought of, his color which used to be noted, no longer hardly comes to mind. Similarly when whether or not a person in STEM is thought of only for their competence and not which sex they happen to belong to, the problem will not longer exist. We do not know how long this will take. Issues about getting there are the topic if this thread.
I don't think it matters whether copulation is involved or not as long as it's sexual. What definitions/standards of sex or types of sexual activity are you implying women would be more inclined towards, then?
Well, men tend to be overtly sexual. It's encouraged in fact, where'as women are at a high risk of being shamed when they are overtly sexual. Men probably needed to control the sexuality of females when we lived as hunter gatherers. A new born being a big stressor on the group. I know infanticide was practiced when the group didn't have the ability to sustain a young child. Two children being born simultaneously was probably a no-go in most situations. Yet men crave copulation more than do females in general. Hence if a female wanted sex she could get herself pregnant in a way that put the group at risk. Hence the need to control female sexuality from the side of men.
When men play games, try to gain prestige, power; increase in desirability, when they fight, even when they engage in artistic matters.. it is easy to spot the sexual underpinnings that are there. Even if the male in question is not aware of them.
Women do similar things. But because they are vulnerable when pregnant, and because they can only bear one child at a time whereas a man can potentially impregnate tons of women (Genghis Khan for instance, or Soul singer Solomon Burke) what they do to attract mates differs. In very general terms they are focused on quality rather than quantity. They need support and protection to bear a child and raise it (when we were hunter gatherers women had to carry their child until it was old enough to keep up with the group).
I need to research this matter a bit more before I go into specifics. Sorry for the weak answer.
Well, men tend to be overtly sexual. It's encouraged in fact, where'as women are at a high risk of being shamed when they are overtly sexual. Men probably needed to control the sexuality of females when we lived as hunter gatherers. A new born being a big stressor on the group. I know infanticide was practiced when the group didn't have the ability to sustain a young child. Two children being born simultaneously was probably a no-go in most situations. Yet men crave copulation more than do females in general. Hence if a female wanted sex she could get herself pregnant in a way that put the group at risk. Hence the need to control female sexuality from the side of men.
When men play games, try to gain prestige, power; increase in desirability, when they fight, even when they engage in artistic matters.. it is easy to spot the sexual underpinnings that are there. Even if the male in question is not aware of them.
Women do similar things. But because they are vulnerable when pregnant, and because they can only bear one child at a time whereas a man can potentially impregnate tons of women (Genghis Khan for instance, or Soul singer Solomon Burke) what they do to attract mates differs. In very general terms they are focused on quality rather than quantity. They need support and protection to bear a child and raise it (when we were hunter gatherers women had to carry their child until it was old enough to keep up with the group).
I need to research this matter a bit more before I go into specifics. Sorry for the weak answer.
We're just in-between bonobos and chimps. Bonobo females and chimp males are the promiscuous ones, so both sub-species of human are somewhat promiscuous.
But how did a discussion on jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths degenerate into sex?
What is A.
What characteristics and qualities do you need to work in A
Does the group B have these qualities and characteristics?
If yes, then encourage them to work and study in A.
If no, encourage them to work and study in A for different reasons, try to change A.
I think that there is not a clear standard of what is required to join the engineering fields and so be successful and yet It seems that there is a lot of asserting and assuming that.
Personally, if there is a Feeler and this feeler becomes a scientist/engineer and keeps his/her job because of high EQ and social skills rather than IQ and efficiency, then this person is right, but the work/platform may be flawed, I would argue that it isn't if it allows for something like this, then it evolves or destroys itself accordingly.
The other aspect is whether the impulse for advertising and encouragement to a specific group comes from A, or rather it is an independent and unassociated factor.
Actually the point behind my STEM thread is a subtle one, which like to many points gets lost. It is that STEM encouragement is actually hurting women, not helping, because it both misunderstands the issue, and treats the effect rather than the cause and ultimately is a form of control. It's demeaning to women to trot them out on videos like the one I posted, like prized animals, it emphasizes ...
There's something wrong with women
We've made them to not like STEM (never mind what they really want)
STEM is the best thing in the world, therefore women are oppressed because they're not in it enough
See, you can be just like these working women, and not in the awful place you are now
Again the whole system is a form of mind or perspective control, which tells women "unless you go into STEM, you are living an inferior life". Then when they get older and want kids and a family, women have the double, triple pressure of having to keep that STEM career going, and be mothers/parents, and still try and keep their relationship going.
Men have a tenth of the pressure that women do, and we don't have stupid rah-rah programs like this trying to convince us who and what we should be. Men are largely given the great gift of freedom and independence in society. Women? They're constantly being told what and who they should be, and how they should act*. They're the most commoditized living creature on this planet. I won't go into it but just see how women are treated in the Childbirth industry and you'll understand.
I'm highly disappointed, of all people I would have expected you folks to see the subtlety of these ideas and the reality behind the collective fiction. I voted "yes" because the poll is so idiotic. Am I wasting my time here? I'll have to think about that.
* Half the material for this idea comes from my INFJ, who has no interest to go into STEM, but she feels the pressure. It actually makes her feel bad, that she didn't have one of those high powered careers.
We're just in-between bonobos and chimps. Bonobo females and chimp males are the promiscuous ones, so both sub-species of human are somewhat promiscuous.
But how did a discussion on jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths degenerate into sex?
(JUST KIDDING!!! Couldn't resist. A thread about women turns into one about sex. Happens every time, you know how it is...)
Points I would raise have already been brought up to some degree. I think femininism is about choice -- people being able to choose where they want to be and based on their own merits. But sometimes society puts up unnecessary hindrances (sometimes literal, sometimes based on inherent prejudices) to being able to explore those choices. Many social solutions (like quotas) were meant to help remove those roadblocks but unfortunately can still perpetuate the differences / create new inequities.
There is no "clean" solution, and definitely no "binary either/or choice). We want to reward merit, while providing options for minority classes. It's going to be messy until the cultural biases diminish over time (hopefully) and options open up on their own. There has already been some progress in that regard.
Men have a tenth of the pressure that women do, and we don't have stupid rah-rah programs like this trying to convince us who and what we should be. Men are largely given the great gift of freedom and independence in society.
I agree with the rest but this is false. The military has such programs and there is much societal pressure toward responsibility and expectations that woman dont have. The same could be said for bearing children when talking about woman and society. There are certain roles that are required because of the differences between a man and woman but then there are the exageration of those roles. How much is appropriate?
I am not fully on board with your wife. Advertisements are all designed to emotionally manipulate. I am not certain why this one should be judged for such actions. I personally think it is just ineffective in eliminating the exageration of gender roles as I believe to be programmed earlier in our psych.
I agree with the rest but this is false. The military has such programs and there is much societal pressure toward responsibility and expectations that woman dont have.
I agree it's not as black and white as it came across -- there are definitely standards for men imposed by society ("how to be a man") and guys are put under a lot of pressure to conform to the social view of what masculinity is; but I think professionally and otherwise men have more flexibility and power to step outside the lines and change their lives, if they want to. I think the inequity is most obvious in subcultures where we see which expectations win out ... when men abandon their responsibilities, women end up picking up the slack in terms of the family structure, breadwinning, etc., where if the reverse happened, I don't think anyone would pick up anything on the broad scale.
The same could be said for bearing children when talking about woman and society. There are certain roles that are required because of the differences between a man and woman but then there are the exageration of those roles. How much is appropriate?
I think there are innate psychological tendencies between men and women. Men are more geometrically and mechanically minded because they were born that way. I don't have anything against the attempt to recruit more women, but I think we need to be realistic about it.
I think it is easier for people to recognize and remember situations where they themselves are slighted or treated unfairly. I am having a hard time determine how much effect that is having on the both of us.
I have seen 4 woman take management positions without any previous experience over men who have had 20+ years in the area. My opinion of woman having an advantage in the workplace is largely due to this, I think.
Can some explain why a woman might need encouragement to get into stem? I am looking for a more individual or personal point of view. Why wouldnt this woman simply be encouraged by a genderless approach?
I think it is easier for people to recognize and remember situations where they themselves are slighted or treated unfairly. I am having a hard time determine how much effect that is having on the both of us.
I have seen 4 woman take management positions without any previous experience over men who have had 20+ years in the area. My opinion of woman having an advantage in the workplace is largely due to this, I think.
Well, I'll say that I did not have that experience until my current job, which happens to be a federal one (so they explicitly do not discriminate by gender, race, religion, etc.) I have never worked in such a diverse environment my entire career in IT and publishing. Over half of the people I work with are female (although there seems to be more male programmers, overall, compared to other positions), and there are many black people here (sometimes it feels like half as well), as well as Asians and Indians and other nationalities. But it's not based on quota.
Here, if there is discrimination, it's more based on your ability to network effectively rather than any static qualities. If you befriend the right people and position yourself properly, you'll get the promotion over others who might be more skilled but who don't know the right people.
in my last job (where I worked for ten years), it was pretty much the "good ol' boy" environment, and the only female project manager was frankly incompetent -- she reminded me of the Sarah Palin of tech services. I don't understand why she didn't get bumped out, except she was attractive and had dated people in management; pretty cray. Pretty much anyone who did the actual work (the IT staff themselves, not managers) saw her as a joke. She didn't have the position because she was a woman, she had it because she was an attractive woman and she knew who to suck up to.
Can some explain why a woman might need encouragement to get into stem? I am looking for a more individual or personal point of view. Why wouldnt this woman simply be encouraged by a genderless approach?
I think encouragement is only useful for those who already had an interest in the field but wrote themselves off in some way over their gender. ("That job is for boys.") I don't see the point in pushing non-interested people into a field. If a woman isn't interested temperament-wise, why actively push her?
However, there's also the type of job where you might not care much either way, but it provides a good income and job security, etc. You don't have to "love" your job in order to enjoy the environment and find it worth working it. We have an analyst program here where you can come from almost any background, and you'll get bumped two grade scales per year while you are being trained, if you pass your probation. My best friend here was an orchestra teacher in middle school before she became an analyst; she's good at this job, but she wouldn't have gone to school for it. She pursued it because it was an opportunity to provide decent money to raise her daughter as a single mom, moreso than remaning a teacher.
But it's work that doesn't need to be promoted to a particular gender.
Actually the point behind my STEM thread is a subtle one, which like to many points gets lost. It is that STEM encouragement is actually hurting women, not helping, because it both misunderstands the issue, and treats the effect rather than the cause and ultimately is a form of control. It's demeaning to women to trot them out on videos like the one I posted, like prized animals, it emphasizes ...
There's something wrong with women
We've made them to not like STEM (never mind what they really want)
STEM is the best thing in the world, therefore women are oppressed because they're not in it enough
See, you can be just like these working women, and not in the awful place you are now
Again the whole system is a form of mind or perspective control, which tells women "unless you go into STEM, you are living an inferior life". Then when they get older and want kids and a family, women have the double, triple pressure of having to keep that STEM career going, and be mothers/parents, and still try and keep their relationship going.
Men have a tenth of the pressure that women do, and we don't have stupid rah-rah programs like this trying to convince us who and what we should be. Men are largely given the great gift of freedom and independence in society. Women? They're constantly being told what and who they should be, and how they should act*. They're the most commoditized living creature on this planet. I won't go into it but just see how women are treated in the Childbirth industry and you'll understand.
I'm highly disappointed, of all people I would have expected you folks to see the subtlety of these ideas and the reality behind the collective fiction. I voted "yes" because the poll is so idiotic. Am I wasting my time here? I'll have to think about that.
* Half the material for this idea comes from my INFJ, who has no interest to go into STEM, but she feels the pressure. It actually makes her feel bad, that she didn't have one of those high powered careers.
I was saying a similar, if not the same, thing (post #51 second half). I definitely agree though about the first part. But men actually do have propaganda/pressure against them in some situations.
Half the material for this idea comes from my INFJ, who has no interest to go into STEM, but she feels the pressure. It actually makes her feel bad, that she didn't have one of those high powered careers.
Meanwhile there's women people (because I'm sick of separating genders anyway) around the globe who would kill for an opportunity like this, who for whatever reason - issues with finances, family or health simply can't even consider it. How awful that programs aimed at providing equal opportunity exist for such people!
I mean honestly. What an outrage that your wife with her big house, car and basic needs all easily met feels like an underachiever because she didn't get into STEM. We should start a riot.
Meanwhile there's women people (because I'm sick of separating genders anyway) around the globe who would kill for an opportunity like this, who for whatever reason - issues with finances, family or health simply can't even consider it. How awful that programs aimed at providing equal opportunity exist for such people!
I mean honestly. What an outrage that your wife with her big house, car and basic needs all easily met feels like an underachiever because she didn't get into STEM. We should start a riot.
I'm just going to jump in blindly and say I want to live in a world with more female engineers, I have absolutely no reason not to want that.
However.
Giving women special encouragement like gender specific scholarships or preferential hiring seems underhandedly sexist to me, I don't think being an engineer has anything to do with the junk between your legs and the insinuation that women need assistance to compete with their male peers is... Well if that's not sexist what is?
I think encouragement is only useful for those who already had an interest in the field but wrote themselves off in some way over their gender. ("That job is for boys.") I don't see the point in pushing non-interested people into a field. If a woman isn't interested temperament-wise, why actively push her?
However, there's also the type of job where you might not care much either way, but it provides a good income and job security, etc. You don't have to "love" your job in order to enjoy the environment and find it worth working it. We have an analyst program here where you can come from almost any background, and you'll get bumped two grade scales per year while you are being trained, if you pass your probation. My best friend here was an orchestra teacher in middle school before she became an analyst; she's good at this job, but she wouldn't have gone to school for it. She pursued it because it was an opportunity to provide decent money to raise her daughter as a single mom, moreso than remaning a teacher.
But it's work that doesn't need to be promoted to a particular gender.
Yeah but what of the cases where there is aptitude but not interest? The springing of the latter having been prevented. I mean girls aren't exactly encouraged to do science stuff in any stage of their lives, how are we to know how many could've been dedicated to STEM research :P
Geez, I feel like a retard today, it takes me a minute to write a normal sentence, and even then it doesn't really make sense. I blame it on lack of sleep.
I wasn't aware of pro-women programs for STEM jobs when I was a biochem major (one day I realized I was bored and changed my major---or was it because of a guy...ehhh). Not that such a program would have enticed me even if it did exist when I was in college/university. I always thought the field was dull, no amount of money or promotions would have changed my opinion.
(Actually, I saw more recruiting for ethnic minorities, non-asian of course, haha, one of the few fields asians are overrepresented)
Yeah but what of the cases where there is aptitude but not interest? The springing of the latter having been prevented. I mean girls aren't exactly encouraged to do science stuff in any stage of their lives, how are we to know how many could've been dedicated to STEM research :P
Geez, I feel like a retard today, it takes me a minute to write a normal sentence, and even then it doesn't really make sense. I blame it on lack of sleep.
Do you mean to say that more women might have the inclination to be interested in the field, but STEM needs more or better advertising so that those people can find out if they have that predisposition?
Edit: I am referring to women who never seriously considered STEM because it is traditionally male or perhaps never even heard of the field before.
For anyone who has the knowledge: what are the payscales like in STEM?
"Although cloaked in good intentions ... racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping," he wrote.
He also rejected the idea that racial diversity had any educational benefit. "As should be obvious, there is nothing 'pressing' or 'necessary' about obtaining whatever educational benefits may flow from racial diversity," he wrote.
How Clarence Thomas Grew To Hate Affirmative Action
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a fight over Michigan's ban on the use of race as a factor in college admissions, and the court's fiercest opponent of affirmative action probably won't say a word.
Clarence Thomas — who's famously quiet during oral arguments — has written that affirmative action amounts to racial discrimination and is every bit as wrong as segregation or slavery.
Thomas graduated from Yale Law School, and in 2007 he attacked his alma mater's affirmative action policies in his memoir and in an interview with ABC News. Thomas argued that what he called the stigmatizing effects of affirmative action put him at a huge disadvantage when he was trying to find work as a lawyer.
Thomas said he went on interviews with one "high-priced lawyer" after another who didn't take him seriously because they thought he got special treatment.
Should people he highered to meet quotas or because they fill the requirements the best?
Romney and his "binders full of women"
you can find for yourself the outrage of women on BOTH sides of this argument.
The only people who had the qualifications in the problem Romney was talking about were men, but then he specifically chose to seek out women.
How equalizing or discriminatory is that?
Thank you and important topic. And one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as Governor of my state. Because I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all of the applicants seemed to be men. And I went to my staff and I said: "How come all of the people for these jobs are all men?" They said: "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said: "Well gosh, can't we find some women that are also qualified?"
And we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our Cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said: "Can you help us find folks?" And they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet, and my senior staff, the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.
He continued, saying that his chief of staff couldn’t work late because she had to be home “making dinner” and “being with them when they get home from school.”
Romney said, “Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.”
Yeah but what of the cases where there is aptitude but not interest? The springing of the latter having been prevented. I mean girls aren't exactly encouraged to do science stuff in any stage of their lives, how are we to know how many could've been dedicated to STEM research :P
Without providing more accurate, detailed reasons why such "interest" may have been prevented, I'm not sure how to have this discussion.
If someone is interested in something (particularly the kind of mind that is actually interested in science and math), how would you derail it if the person is given the opportunity to explore it? Typically such a person regardless of gender "thinks" in a way that is scientific/mathematical to start with, they aren't dissuaded by soft means.
Should we be actively pushing knitting and baking on boys who show a potential aptitude for such things, even if they show little interest, and how would we go about that reasonably?
Without providing more accurate, detailed reasons why such "interest" may have been prevented, I'm not sure how to have this discussion.
If someone is interested in something (particularly the kind of mind that is actually interested in science and math), how would you derail it if the person is given the opportunity to explore it? Typically such a person regardless of gender "thinks" in a way that is scientific/mathematical to start with, they aren't dissuaded by soft means.
Should we be actively pushing knitting and baking on boys who show a potential aptitude for such things, even if they show little interest, and how would we go about that reasonably?
Well you develop interests as you grow up, but as they grow up I doubt girls are ever pushed in the direction of interests which might later on lead them to consider STEM-related work. In fact I'd wager they are ushered away from such things as chemistry sets. And who would buy a book written by Stephen Hawkins for a girl? Then there's social pressure as well. That a scientific mind would not be dissuaded sounds strange to me, why would it not?
I think it is safe to say that there are probably some women out there who may very well possess the aptitude but lack the interest. The thought of working with STEM-related stuff simply never occurring to them, or if it does it may well be disregarded on faulty grounds, considered a bad idea instinctively because it's alien.
I'm not for actively pushing children, but we do actively push children in directions without realizing it regardless.
Well you develop interests as you grow up, but as they grow up I doubt girls are ever pushed in the direction of interests which might later on lead them to consider STEM-related work. In fact I'd wager they are ushered away from such things as chemistry sets. And who would buy a book written by Stephen Hawkins for a girl? Then there's social pressure as well. That a scientific mind would not be dissuaded sounds strange to me, why would it not?
I think it is safe to say that there are probably some women out there who may very well possess the aptitude but lack the interest. The thought of working with STEM-related stuff simply never occurring to them, or if it does it may well be disregarded on faulty grounds, considered a bad idea instinctively because it's alien.
I'm not for actively pushing children, but we do actively push children in directions without realizing it regardless.
I guess I've just been fortunate enough that I did not witness this when I was in school, nor did I see it happen with my kids in their school curriculum.
Unless the suppression is active and clearly stated, or there are rules that obviously contribute to it, I'm not sure how to discuss it. Pretty much you can assume everything is "pressure" and make random assumptions.
Boys were forced to take Home Economics when I was in middle school, and girls were forced to take Shop Class / Woodworking.
I guess I've just been fortunate enough that I did not witness this when I was in school, nor did I see it happen with my kids in their school curriculum.
Unless the suppression is active and clearly stated, or there are rules that obviously contribute to it, I'm not sure how to discuss it. Pretty much you can assume everything is "pressure" and make random assumptions.
Boys were forced to take Home Economics when I was in middle school, and girls were forced to take Shop Class / Woodworking.
Well I meant it more as the effect of the sum of all small little things by which society urges men and women into their roles. It's not possible to know fully what is nature and what is nurture of course, but that's the point. It's hard to speak of aptitude and interest when neither are set in stone, and the latter (which may lead to the former if developed) especially may not be given a chance to develop.
Forgive my frustrating ambiguity and speculative line of reasoning, I am not pleased with it myself.
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.
1) A top male chef's friends are nearly all men, say, someone like Gordon Ramsey, or Jamie Oliver. Can't be good at cooking then, because that's a female thing, right?
2) Most of my friends in my teens and twenties were women. Means I can't be good at STEM fields, even though I ace those fields, right?
Who your friends are, is not that great at indicator at what subjects you'd be good at. It shows certain preferences, such as that I quite like the theatre and amateur dramatics. But it really doesn't show whether someone would be good at STEM or not, or even if they enjoy STEM fields.
This is part of the problem. We're looking for quick & easy indicators, rather than accurate indicators, because accuracy takes hard work. So, we go for the short-cut, and then things don't work out as we expected, because our expectations weren't reasonable in the first place.
As Robert Heinlein said, TANSTAAFL ("There ain't no such thing as a free lunch").
I guess I've just been fortunate enough that I did not witness this when I was in school, nor did I see it happen with my kids in their school curriculum.
Unless the suppression is active and clearly stated, or there are rules that obviously contribute to it, I'm not sure how to discuss it. Pretty much you can assume everything is "pressure" and make random assumptions.
Boys were forced to take Home Economics when I was in middle school, and girls were forced to take Shop Class / Woodworking.
I know quite a number of guys who were forced to take Home Economics when they were in school, in the end most of them seemed to enjoy it somewhat (or maybe just the cooking part and not everything else).
Going by statistics women are still under-represented in STEM; roughly 30% of women are T-types in the MBTI but we see less than 30% of science researchers who are women. The assumption that they are not interested e.g. because they will have children or have a lot of pressure that's not imposed on men etc. is a patronising one; women going on maternity leave is a reality (as well as women demanding that their significant others go on paternity leave it's odd that the biggest advocates for paternity leave are always mothers).
Encouraging female participation in these fields is long overdue, especially when there are many women who are interested in pure maths (and do well at it), as well as the sciences. Of course it shouldn't be a quota, but there's been such a pressure against women in the sciences historically (isolated examples like the namesake of the programming language Ada notwithstanding) that encouraging women to go into STEM merely makes things neutral. I'm sure there's another Admiral Grace Hopper out there waiting to be discovered.
Well you develop interests as you grow up, but as they grow up I doubt girls are ever pushed in the direction of interests which might later on lead them to consider STEM-related work.
They are in the UK, and I'd wager, in every country that backs feminism and is thus concerned about any fields which are considered high-status, and where less than 50% of people in such high-status fields are women.
Contrast that to ditch-diggers, road sweepers, and sewage workers, all very low-status jobs. They are almost completely male-dominated. But no feminists seem to care, and so, no-one thinks it's a problem.
Anyone who wants their children to succeed, and is middle-class. They boys are usually given sneakers, and expected to fend for themselves. After all, it's a male-dominated world. So boys don't need any help to get a job in science, if they want it. But, because it's a male-dominated world, if you want your girl to even be a cook, she'll have to have an edge, and that means knowing more science than the boys, again, because science is high-status, and thus knowing science is considered to give you an advantage.
I think it is safe to say that there are probably some women out there who may very well possess the aptitude but lack the interest. The thought of working with STEM-related stuff simply never occurring to them, or if it does it may well be disregarded on faulty grounds, considered a bad idea instinctively because it's alien.
I did a maths degree in university. There were around 120 people on my course in my year. 30% of the students on my course were women. All but two were going into accountancy.
This surprised me greatly, because the people on my course who genuinely loved maths, which included the daughter of the maths lecturer, wouldn't touch accountancy with a bargepole, because it's almost the opposite of advanced maths.
But, that's what the women on my course chose to do. So who am I to tell them what subjects to study?
This sort of thing probably differs from country to country, and even from city to city. But I doubt that Sweden is less gender-equal than the UK.
I did a maths degree in university. There were around 120 people on my course in my year. 30% of the students on my course were women. All but two were going into accountancy.
Pure speculation here, but I wonder if this has something to do with a lack of confidence. Many young girls feel insecure about their abilities in the more traditional male subjects, so perhaps opt for something they know for sure they can master, like accounting. Also, perhaps women are more inclined to go for professions that will guarantee work; knowing that in the current society, being provided for by a male is no longer an option unless one has an absolute desire to opt for a more traditional life of marriage with children and a husband wealthy enough to support a full-time home situation for her and their children . Having a successful career in mathematics is difficult unless one possesses some considerable talent. You can take basic and middle level accounting skills into so many fields.
Not that I think this can also be a case for males. I know many males of considerable IQ and talent who still doubt their abilities. A young ENTP friend of mine is incredibly intelligent and has exceptional self-taught computer technical skills and knowledge, but he opted out of university in the second year because he lacks the confidence to complete the course due to having a learning and processing problem which renders him incapable of completing projects.
My partner has an IQ of over 160, and yet procrastinates about applying for university because he has incredibly high expectations of himself. He is also INTP, which means he wants to be 100% sure he has a thorough understanding of concepts before throwing himself into higher level mathematics -- he will not do anything unless he feels absolutely competent with the basics first.
I think, however, this is even more common with girls in male fields; they put exceptional expectations on themselves because they already have doubts about their abilities due to socially ingrained beliefs. I can relate to this also. When I started doing higher level maths at uni, I had a very shaky foundation and thus suffered great anxiety before tests and such. Now that I understand the concepts, I look back and think how much my current level of understanding would have helped me with this anxiety. The extreme pressure I put on myself would cause me to have mental blanks during tests which meant I would nearly fail maths every time. Luckily, my maths lecturer knew about my anxiety and she also recognised I was paradoxically able to solve more complex problems while completely floundering with simpler problems. I think this was entirely related to confidence; because I had zero expectations concerning my ability to solve complex problems, it put me in a state of indifference; this made me relax more and I was thus able to complete the harder parts of tests while stuffing up the simple parts. Because of her support and understanding, I was able to pass my maths subjects successfully.
I think there are a myriad of social and psychological factors that play in with ability; one may have all the aptitude necessary, but environmental influences has set one off on a shaky start.
I have a female INTP friend who has considerable mathematical and scientific aptitude, but because she suffered crippling anxiety, she is not even capable yet of dealing with studying; let alone exam conditions. If she could have done a full reboot, I believe she would now have an excellent career in research.
So I think there is a great need to address the underlying reasons for these issues. Not just with respect to females and the challenges they face of crossing stereotype boundaries (that is one side of the prism), but also with respect to males who may suffer a lack of confidence for other reasons that we may not have explored fully yet.
Not that I think this can also be a case for males. I know many males of considerable IQ and talent who still doubt their abilities. A young ENTP friend of mine is incredibly intelligent and has exceptional self-taught computer technical skills and knowledge, but he opted out of university in the second year because he lacks the confidence to complete the course due to having a learning and processing problem which renders him incapable of completing projects.
My partner has an IQ of over 160, and yet procrastinates about applying for university because he has incredibly high expectations of himself. He is also INTP, which means he wants to be 100% sure he has a thorough understanding of concepts before throwing himself into higher level mathematics -- he will not do anything unless he feels absolutely competent with the basics first.
I imagine a society with 1000 people, 500 men and 500 women. IQ scores are distributed evenly across genders. In this society, we'll make a few assumptions (which are NOT designed to perfectly represent reality):
STEM is considered very important for the stability and advancement of society.
There are 100 STEM jobs available at any given time.
High IQ is the important quality for working in STEM
Under that scenario, I'd want the portion of the population in the top ten percent of IQ scores to be working in STEM, and I would reasonably expect there to be a similar percentage of men to women. If the actual percentages skew too heavily toward one gender, I'd be questioning why and looking to remedy it.
There are a lot of reasons why my hypothetical society doesn't pan out in reality. Primarily, it's dramatically oversimplified to the point of being unrealistic (for instance, IQ isn't the only factor relevant who should be in STEM). The point here is not realism, but rather a different perspective on the issue. STEM is skilled work which is considered important, and it would be preferable to draw the best individuals from the largest pool of candidates. If it appears that women are disproportionately avoiding STEM when there isn't an apparent lack of aptitude, there's a pool of untapped talent to target (no alliteration intended).
The problem exists regardless. It's pretty much a guarantee that you do not draw only those with the highest aptitude into any given job, but that would be the ideal. You certainly wouldn't want to do anything to worsen the issue.
The targeted effort to raise the profile of women in STEM may have some gender equality component to it, but I suspect it's more about reducing a speculated selection bias which unduly filters out potentially high quality STEM researchers/ workers. Whether it's actually the correct avenue to take, I don't know, but it is one way to look at the issue.
Pure speculation here, but I wonder if this has something to do with a lack of confidence. Many young girls feel insecure about their abilities in the more traditional male subjects, so perhaps opt for something they know for sure they can master, like accounting. Also, perhaps women are more inclined to go for professions that will guarantee work; knowing that in the current society, being provided for by a male is no longer an option unless one has an absolute desire to opt for a more traditional life of marriage with children and a husband wealthy enough to support a full-time home situation for her and their children . Having a successful career in mathematics is difficult unless one possesses some considerable talent. You can take basic and middle level accounting skills into so many fields.
Not that I think this can also be a case for males. I know many males of considerable IQ and talent who still doubt their abilities. A young ENTP friend of mine is incredibly intelligent and has exceptional self-taught computer technical skills and knowledge, but he opted out of university in the second year because he lacks the confidence to complete the course due to having a learning and processing problem which renders him incapable of completing projects.
My partner has an IQ of over 160, and yet procrastinates about applying for university because he has incredibly high expectations of himself. He is also INTP, which means he wants to be 100% sure he has a thorough understanding of concepts before throwing himself into higher level mathematics -- he will not do anything unless he feels absolutely competent with the basics first.
I think, however, this is even more common with girls in male fields; they put exceptional expectations on themselves because they already have doubts about their abilities due to socially ingrained beliefs. I can relate to this also. When I started doing higher level maths at uni, I had a very shaky foundation and thus suffered great anxiety before tests and such. Now that I understand the concepts, I look back and think how much my current level of understanding would have helped me with this anxiety. The extreme pressure I put on myself would cause me to have mental blanks during tests which meant I would nearly fail maths every time. Luckily, my maths lecturer knew about my anxiety and she also recognised I was paradoxically able to solve more complex problems while completely floundering with simpler problems. I think this was entirely related to confidence; because I had zero expectations concerning my ability to solve complex problems, it put me in a state of indifference; this made me relax more and I was thus able to complete the harder parts of tests while stuffing up the simple parts. Because of her support and understanding, I was able to pass my maths subjects successfully.
I think there are a myriad of social and psychological factors that play in with ability; one may have all the aptitude necessary, but environmental influences has set one off on a shaky start.
I have a female INTP friend who has considerable mathematical and scientific aptitude, but because she suffered crippling anxiety, she is not even capable yet of dealing with studying; let alone exam conditions. If she could have done a full reboot, I believe she would now have an excellent career in research.
So I think there is a great need to address the underlying reasons for these issues. Not just with respect to females and the challenges they face of crossing stereotype boundaries (that is one side of the prism), but also with respect to males who may suffer a lack of confidence for other reasons that we may not have explored fully yet.
The arguments that you stated, are applicable to men as well. Men can suffer from a lack of confidence in STEM fields, and many do. Men also have a motive to choose jobs that are more likely to yield a reliable income, even more than women, as men are expected to pay for themselves, their spouse, and their children. Women have the option to marry, if their career prospects don't work out. Men don't really have that option.
Yet, I didn't meet a single man who even considered doing maths, who had such concerns. I knew one guy on my maths course who was much better at politics, and enjoyed it more. He chose to do maths because he felt more secure there. But he didn't even admit to such concerns, until mid-way through his degree, and by which point, he wasn't even willing to consider changing.
In addition, there's just as much reason for men to have such anxiety. Oddly enough, the only people I knew who admitted to having such anxieties were women. One was a woman on my course, who was easily in the top 5. She got panic attacks at exam time, and was allowed to repeat the year. My mother had anxieties also, when it came to her driving test and her accountancy exams. When it came to her driving test, she was married by then, and my father pushed her to do it, and she passed. She was unmarried and without a father or brothers urging her forwards towards her accountancy exams, and there, she didn't take the exams, even though she clearly could have passed them with flying colours.
I myself only chose to do maths, because I knew I could do it, but had very little confidence in anything else. Even so, I thought there were few career prospects with maths, and thus chose not to even go to uni at all, until 5 years later, when a friend explained to me that maths had a lot of career prospects. Even so, I was afraid to try them, and ended up going for computer programming anyway, because I knew that I could do it.
What you've highlighted, is that a lot of women are going into STEM fields, with a level of insecurity in their abilities, fear in their likelihood of future employment, and anxiety in general, when there are almost no men with similar levels of insecurity, fear and anxiety, who are going into those fields at all.
What you've also highlighted, is that those women get a lot of support, from their family, friends, teachers, and universities, that men don't seem to report getting at all.
So yes, what you've said is important, because it highlights a massive gender divide. You're a woman. You're expected to have such problems, and you are supported as such.
If you were a man, you'd have been screwed.
So, you ask, if men have such problems as much as women, then why aren't there more women in STEM fields?
You answered your own question. Maths is hard. Women get support. So they don't have to. They can go into psychology instead, and get just as much support. Men don't get that support. So whether we go into STEM or anything else, won't make a difference that way. However, in STEM, there is a "right answer". So if someone does go into a STEM field, and they don't have that support, then they can still plough ahead, simply by working hard until they get the right answer, which is somewhat less reliable in other fields where men are less common.
Okay, lots of speculation here...but it is kind of necessary because we do not see this being discussed much in public at all. We may find published articles about underlying psychological reasons for gender behaviours, but these articles are hidden from the public view, mostly. And this is a forum for discussion -- so, why not.
You make an equally good case, as I would have expected. There are always multiple facets to a problem; often when one side of an issue is identified, the shadow side will remain in the dark until light is cast upon it.
It is obvious that males carry insecurities about their abilities. And I think this may have something to do with expectations on males. They are expected to cope with pretty much everything, because they are....well, male.
This seems to be very much the case in countries like the US and Australia, and I cannot speculate why this is, but if I compare to my observations from growing up in a Scandinavian country, we may get an idea why.
This is my point in highlighting the social conditioning of women; I have pointed out why programs such as STEM (let's forget about the efficiency of such programs for now as there seems to be no evidence yet of whether these are beneficial or not, or who instigated it - apparently it was Silicon Valley recruiting for software programmers under the disguise of gender charity/goodwill) may be beneficial as societies are scratching their heads as to why there aren't more females in this line of work. However, pushing programs like STEM in countries where gender equality seems to be all about one side due to an exaggerated focus in all kinds of media on feminism as being beneficial for females only, may have something to do with the negative reactions. Men feel left out because, yes, men do have insecurities as well -- for different reasons.
Yes, women have been traditionally heavily discriminated against thanks to society's perception of female roles; and this is largely thanks to the traditional values being pushed by the church in the past; ever since the dark ages when the church, or the churches dubious representatives started their demonizing of women's sexuality and the following persecutions of women who were considered dangerous because of their intellectual capacities -- society has gradually absorbed these notions of what females should be and shouldn't be, and it has become an ingrained attitude in both genders, that women and men are not to be treated on equal terms. Our current educational system, morals/ ethics, terms of partnership in marriage, and government policy is all founded upon Christian morals and beliefs, whether one considers oneself a Christian or not.
And yes, people are right in asserting there is no active persecution or systematic repression of women any more -- but the ingrained attitudes still remain in all of us, and we aren't even aware of some of these, which is why sexism and domestic violence is still a problem in many societies, including the more liberal Scandinavian countries. This is why there is still a lot of anger hidden in females, and thus the rather vehement backlash from the more extreme side of feminism -- the so-called Feminazis. This anger may seem unnecessary as there is no obvious discrimination seen from a male perspective -- women can vote and have right to the same education, right? -- however, look a bit deeper and one may be able to understand the anger when the untold stories of subtle discrimination, sexual abuse and sexism becomes evident. Women do get angry, they just show it differently. And sexual abuse, sexism and subtle discrimination is hard to prove -- not to mention the humiliating process of having to do so in order to prove a point. I will not even start on my own past/daily experiences, let alone the testimonies of other close female friends and colleagues I have exchanged experiences with. Women do not talk about abuse because it is a stigma.
However, these extreme backlash-type movements are not helping the case at all.
So the only answer I can see is that we have to find a middle ground where both parties can exchange concerns on equal terms -- and with equal understanding.
In Scandinavia the numbers of females in male professions are higher, as Cherry Cola pointed out. This is largely due to the constant reiteration from the educational system as well as subtle messages from government policies to eliminate traditional gender imbalances in the workplace, as well as in society in general (unfortunately, domestic violence is still a big problem, mainly because these issues are more difficult to police). This movement has risen from something quite unique to Scandinavia: The Human Ethical Movements, which is entirely secular in origin. The reason for the success of gender equality movements in Scandinavian countries could have something to do with the deliberate emphasis on human-ethics which is very obvious in legislation and in the educational system.
Now, the interesting thing is that these subtle messages has also encouraged males to go for traditionally female professions; you will notice more men in childcare professions such as kindergarten workers, early childhood carers, primary school teachers and male nurses, as well as men generally taking a more active part in raising children through government incentives that encourage men as much as women to take extended paid paternity leave .
With these subtle messages sent out to women as well as men, the society structure is gradually changing from one where both men and women had insecurities about respective gender issues, to one where both genders feel more or less equally considered regarding these issues.
This has all resulted from what we like to call 'feminism'. In this respect, feminism has somewhat worked for men. The discussions that took place back in the 60s and 70s as the result of the push for women to have more opportunities also brought with it an encouragement for men to let go of their insecurities and opt for professions where they previously would not have dared to go. This is largely possible as the subsequent anti-discrimination laws were pretty conspicuous, and women in Scandinavia have been rather enthusiastic about encouraging men to let go of their insecurities.
I am not saying this system is perfect yet, but it is an ongoing process that is slowly producing very obvious results.
So, I will conclude that you are absolutely right in the argument that men have similar issues. This was also a point I emphasised in my previous post. Men have different reasons, they just don't seek help because it is not considered 'male enough' to do so.
@Polaris. Your pro-STEM argument should be generalized to "Societies should reduce undesirable cultural conditioning" lest it should unduly specify STEM; bigotry and abuse should be eradicated whatever female STEM participation ultimately becomes. Also, a trivium: gender correlation with domestic violence remains disputed.
Ok, I'm a female and i study a science at one of the top universities, so I'm probably biased. Also, I was never part of a STEM program as a girl. I just kind of ended up in science because I liked it and math a lot.
As a side note, I've never experienced any sort of 'sexism' at school and I don't know anyone who has.
Pushing STEM on girls in the US is an awful idea. We all get exposed to science and math to the same degree when in elementary, middle, and high-school. Why would a girl need more exposure to understand enough to choose it as a profession than a boy would?
In order for good science to get done, there needs to be people doing the work who are good at it. STEM programs for girls are part of a larger move to get women into fields typically dominated by men. There are formal and informal requirements for a female 'quota' set by institutions and the government. For example, a group of professors recently submitted a proposal to the NSF. It was rejected immediately with the comment "Did you think we would not notice that your panel includes no women?" But there aren't any women at the school who specialize in the research the proposal was about. The solution was to pick an underqualified woman, stick her name on the proposal, and re-submit. Funding depended on the presence of a woman's name on the proposal, not on the actual content.
What about female professors? Were they tenured because the department needed women working? The attempt to move women into STEM by requiring that there be women included undermines those who were tenured due to merit.
This societal move is supposedly intended to help empower women, but it actually hurts us. It keeps sexism alive by default since it is a reaction to it. Women can't be the equal of men because, amongst other things, we've gotten institutions and the government to require our presence. The ramifications of that are huge...
Of course, women simply aren't the equal of men. We get pregnant, men don't. Physically we are totally different... we probably see the world very differently and have different intellectual abilities. Does getting treated as equals mean that women get treated as men of that men get treated more like women or a bit of both? If women get treated as men their needs won't be met and their strengths may not be utilized. Vice versa.
Now back to STEM for girls. In principle if such programs were effective at getting 60% of participants to pursue STEM careers even though the individuals may not be naturally inclined to be good at such subjects, we will have a massive educational problem. They won't pass the classes! And in the US what we do when people don't pass classes is we make the classes easier. There would be no problem with inundating the educational system with STEM students if the difficulty level of the courses remained the same.
The danger is that STEM programs for girls are the result of a movement that brings women into fields not necessarily due to merit, but because they are women.
Funding: The number of professorships for example, will not change much. An increase in women means a decrease in men. An increase in unqualified and incompetent professors means a decrease in competent ones.
Education: Grad students learn from the professor. They work at the forefront of their field. If the professor isn't too bright, the students will suffer. If the students have a shoddy PI, their grad work will not be so good, and then we will have another crappy scientist looking for a job.
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?
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.
My INTJ and I run an IT company together. He has a significant misogynist streak, which he keeps to himself except for when it is his time of the month bring up this and one other subject. So, looking for a debate, he always asks me what I think of the numerous incentives to bring more women into the industry. This is always my answer:
Giving women special encouragement like gender specific scholarships or preferential hiring seems underhandedly sexist to me, I don't think being an engineer has anything to do with the junk between your legs and the insinuation that women need assistance to compete with their male peers is... Well if that's not sexist what is?
I also point out that many women just aren't motivated to be as competitive as men. In highly competitive/over-saturated professions with a potential for high pay, you always see more men than women.
Some people claim this is the result of a man's superior ability to grasp certain topics, or sometimes, their "vision". But I think it is more an issue of aggression. Aggressive women can rise just as high as men, and relish in the sport of the added challenge of a gender disadvantage. But that sounds so exhausting to me and (I'd assume) to most women. Throw that in with generations of discouraging women from even accumulating knowledge in many competitive fields, and you have a gender inbalance in the work place.
But you can't force a field to be less competitive/over-saturated. And just handing a job to a woman because she is a woman is counterproductive at best.
The only solution I can think of is to not discourage women in STEM. If people would get over the "boys are smarter than girls" crap, it would help too. It would never be a 50/50 split, but I think something more resembling the gender ratios seen among doctors and lawyers is certainly possible.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
A thread about women turns into one about sex. Happens every time, you know how it is...)
it's odd that the biggest advocates for paternity leave are always mothers).
