Why don't more women pursue a career in Physics?

[swansont]

You know, sometimes I don't see staying at home cleaning and doing laundry as hard as getting up and going to work everyday.

Just saying.

 

 

How hard would it be to be told that you must stay home and do these things (and others), because society doesn't value contributions you might make in the workplace, and you needn't worry your pretty head about big scary things like science and numbers?

I may be one of the three you mention but I've also put forward thoughts on engineering a change, if that's the consensus desire. Life is the way it and if you want change it you've got to change the ground conditions. I was rather hoping this discussion would be about solutions, but, as ever, it's just mutual wringing of hands.

 

 

It can't be about solutions if many are in denial about the nature of the problem.

[StringJunky]

 

 

How hard would it be to be told that you must stay home and do these things (and others), because society doesn't value contributions you might make in the workplace, and you needn't worry your pretty head about big scary things like science and numbers?

I think this is his naivete coming to the fore. It is one of the great injustices that people who 'keep house' are treated with lower status than people who earn the money.

It can't be about solutions if many are in denial about the nature of the problem.

Is the denial amongst those that can initiate the changes; the ones pulling the levers?

Edited April 24, 2017 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

How hard would it be to be told that you must stay home and do these things (and others), because society doesn't value contributions you might make in the workplace, and you needn't worry your pretty head about big scary things like science and numbers?

Yes. This is why girls out number guys in the stem programs at my school, on the math Olympiad team, and in band.

Because parents say things like "Don't worry your pretty head about science and numbers my dear, stay at home and clean."

What planet do you live on that this is how bad you think it is?

I encourage you to go find a single girl under the age of 25 that was told "Don't worry your pretty head about science or numbers" or something resembling that.

We aren't as sexist as your generation.

I could care less who discovers something, and I'm pretty sure the majority of people could care less too.

 

And both you and phi took what I said wrong.

Face it. The majority of Americans do not work in the stem fields. Most of them work as retailers, accountants, or laborers.

If the rest of my life was faced with laboring outside cutting down trees and moving them for the rest of my life, staying at home might not seem so bad.

So as sexist and terrible as you think it is that some women stay at home and take care of the house, chances are they wouldn't have gotten into the stem field anyway.

Sexism is almost entirely for the upper-class. Where I live, men go out to work in factories, to do labor outside, to sell things in stores, and to work in an office. The women stay home to take care of the house.

Maybe you see this as terrible, but I don't see either side very appealing.

But maybe we should let the men stay home and take care of the house, and while the girls are growing up constantly pressure them to go get a job working and support a family. Then it won't be sexist right?

I think this is his naivete coming to the fore. It is one of the great injustices that people who 'keep house' are treated with lower status than people who earn the money.

My dad treats my mother as his equal.

As any good husband should.

If he treats her worse simply because she doesn't make money, then the problem lies with him. Not with whether she has a job or not.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Raider5678

[Elbow_Patches]

Gosh, thanks for the lively discussion everyone; let's keep it civil and informative, please.

 

Obviously this is an issue that needs to be discussed with tact, and perhaps that's why it isn't talked about enough. As a male, and fairly fresh teacher, I'm coming at the issue from a male perspective, so I really appreciate all of you giving your own perspective on the matter.

 

A specific point someone raised was that the term 'woman' rather than 'female' with be preferred. I went with the more clinical term because it avoids needing to switch from the term 'girls' to 'women' at some predefined age limit. Do you think it would be better to refer to 'women' for all age groups?

 

With regards to harassment, if girls are put off by boys in classes when they're younger, and they 'see' Physics as a mainly male subject leading to male dominated industries, I can see how that could discourage them from choosing it. We do find that girls in single sex schools are much more likely to study Physics. They could be considering sexism and the potential barriers in the field due to their gender, or it could be somewhat childish instincts. We do expect 16 year old's to make decisions that arguably set them on their whole career path.

 

Despite attempts to open doors and provide female role-models over the last 25 or so years that 20% (of Physics students being girls) figure has remained fairly constant. I'm interested to know what a green Physics teacher on the ground can do to give those potential Physicists a fair chance.

 

Thanks again for all of your comments. Please do share the survey link if you know someone who's like to contribute.

 

EP

[Lord Antares]

Also one of the things I mentioned. Many are steered away from it, often from an early age. You probably aren't going to be interested in something if your parents and teachers and other influential people are telling you it's not the field for you, that girls don't do it and that you're not smart enough for it.

 

No. This certainly doesn't happen anymore. It might have been true in the 20th century, but certainly not now. Times and have changed, and I don't think I could to one woman whose parents would discourage her from studying physics. At least not a higher percentage of them than men.

Times are more liberal now.

 

 

There are just so many instances of women being verbally attacked just because they are women (in science and outside of science), in ways that men rarely are, that I dismiss such suggestions as being grossly misinformed/naive. You think being in a forum saves you from this? I've had a few rude comments thrown at me over the years, in my role as moderator, but they pale in comparison with the comments I've seen directed at a few of the women we've had on staff.

 

Of course sexism exist, but not at the level which you are making it seem. Seeing some women get bullied away from the forum shows that prejudice against women exists, but it does not show that it is at a statistically significant level.

 

 

It might be, but without any science to back it up it also might be the same kind of gender bias that's part of the aforementioned problems.

 

Fair enough. But one might argue that you would need to present evidence to me which shows that women are harrassed to a statistically significant level in the first place. In other words, if you want evidence, you should present figures when you're making a claim first. The claim being that sexism is as abundant as you're saying it is.

 

Having three people, all (probably) men, in this kind of agreement (and in contrast with information that's been presented) is another representation of the larger problem. "I can't imagine it being an issue, therefore it must not be" is a form of the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

 

I am not sure why objectivity would be excluded by the fact that us 3 are men. We can try to make objective observations, such as yours of sexism. I'm not sure why you're saying I think sexism is not an issue. It is, but at a much lower level of frequency. Cars running over people is an issue, but not so statistically significant that we should remove cars from use.

 

I encourage you to go find a single girl under the age of 25 that was told "Don't worry your pretty head about science or numbers" or something resembling that.

We aren't as sexist as your generation.

I could care less who discovers something, and I'm pretty sure the majority of people could care less too.

 

Agreed totally.

 

 

 

How hard would it be to be told that you must stay home and do these things (and others), because society doesn't value contributions you might make in the workplace, and you needn't worry your pretty head about big scary things like science and numbers?

 

 

As Raider says, this sounds alien to me. I cannot remember hearing this being said. Maybe in isolated cases and other people would most certainly not agree with this.

 

All in all, of course sexism exists, but it can't be as big of a factor as the women's lack of interest in physics. Impossible.

Keep in mind, I am arguing a statistic, not whether there is or isn't sexism in science.

[swansont]

Yes. This is why girls out number guys in the stem programs at my school, on the math Olympiad team, and in band.

Because parents say things like "Don't worry your pretty head about science and numbers my dear, stay at home and clean."

It would be a mistake to think that things are the same everywhere, and have always been that way. It's the same set of blinders I was referring to earlier.

 

The fact that there are more girls than boys in these programs shows that it's not inherent ability nor inherent disinterest keeping them out of these fields. So what is keeping them from these same accomplishments elsewhere, and in earlier times? What's left?

 

 

What planet do you live on that this is how bad you think it is?

I encourage you to go find a single girl under the age of 25 that was told "Don't worry your pretty head about science or numbers" or something resembling that.

We aren't as sexist as your generation.

I could care less who discovers something, and I'm pretty sure the majority of people could care less too.

While that's great, what effect, exactly, does the presence of less-sexist high-schoolers have on someone currently in graduate school, or beyond?

 

And both you and phi took what I said wrong.

Face it. The majority of Americans do not work in the stem fields. Most of them work as retailers, accountants, or laborers.

The job you have is not necessarily the job you want. How many people actually aspire to be laborers, or retailers? Lots of people out there flipping burgers (or similar). Do you think that is the pinnacle to which people aspire?

 

If the rest of my life was faced with laboring outside cutting down trees and moving them for the rest of my life, staying at home might not seem so bad.

So as sexist and terrible as you think it is that some women stay at home and take care of the house, chances are they wouldn't have gotten into the stem field anyway.

Sexism is almost entirely for the upper-class. Where I live, men go out to work in factories, to do labor outside, to sell things in stores, and to work in an office. The women stay home to take care of the house.

So you have no real experience with what people in STEM fields do, and yet you know that people don't want those jobs. Interesting.

 

 

No. This certainly doesn't happen anymore. It might have been true in the 20th century, but certainly not now. Times and have changed, and I don't think I could to one woman whose parents would discourage her from studying physics. At least not a higher percentage of them than men.

Times are more liberal now.

It certainly does. It may be less prevalent, but to think that everyone has embraced such a position is preposterously naive.

 

 

Of course sexism exist, but not at the level which you are making it seem. Seeing some women get bullied away from the forum shows that prejudice against women exists, but it does not show that it is at a statistically significant level.

OK, that's progress. Going from "the problem doesn't exist" to "the problem exists, but it's a small effect". Same trajectory as the denialism of Global warming, or creationism.

 

 

Fair enough. But one might argue that you would need to present evidence to me which shows that women are harrassed to a statistically significant level in the first place. In other words, if you want evidence, you should present figures when you're making a claim first. The claim being that sexism is as abundant as you're saying it is.

Sexual harassment is underreported, because of the tendency to attack the reporters and defend the perpetrators.

 

But in surveys, it's quite common. 1 in 3 women report it being an issue at work. in STEM it's 31%. There's no reason to believe physics is an outlier

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/1-in-3-women-sexually-harassed-work-cosmopolitan_n_6713814.html

 

Almost 3/4 of the women did not report the harassment.

 

 

I am not sure why objectivity would be excluded by the fact that us 3 are men. We can try to make objective observations, such as yours of sexism. I'm not sure why you're saying I think sexism is not an issue. It is, but at a much lower level of frequency. Cars running over people is an issue, but not so statistically significant that we should remove cars from use.

It's the issue of men deciding what women experience, based almost entirely on not being aware of the issues.

 

Your car example is not apt. We have a large number of efforts to mitigate cars running over people, and removing cars from use is not the analogous solution. We remove drivers who do this. We have crosswalks and roads & sidewalks to improve safety. And we also don't look at someone who has been hit by a car and deny that it happened, and ask them why they're trying to ruin the driver's life by making the claim that they were struck. We don't generally have the police say that it was the driver's first incident, even though it wasn't, and let him off with a warning.

 

But that sort of thing happens in sexual harassment cases.

 

 

As Raider says, this sounds alien to me. I cannot remember hearing this being said. Maybe in isolated cases and other people would most certainly not agree with this.

You're a woman? Or, more to the point, you are many women?

 

 

All in all, of course sexism exists, but it can't be as big of a factor as the women's lack of interest in physics. Impossible.

Keep in mind, I am arguing a statistic, not whether there is or isn't sexism in science.

And what statistics have you presented to back up your position?

[Raider5678]

 

1. It would be a mistake to think that things are the same everywhere, and have always been that way. It's the same set of blinders I was referring to earlier.

 

2. The fact that there are more girls than boys in these programs shows that it's not inherent ability nor inherent disinterest keeping them out of these fields. So what is keeping them from these same accomplishments elsewhere, and in earlier times? What's left?

 

3. While that's great, what effect, exactly, does the presence of less-sexist high-schoolers have on someone currently in graduate school, or beyond?

 

4. The job you have is not necessarily the job you want. How many people actually aspire to be laborers, or retailers? Lots of people out there flipping burgers (or similar). Do you think that is the pinnacle to which people aspire?

 

5. So you have no real experience with what people in STEM fields do, and yet you know that people don't want those jobs. Interesting.

1. I have never said sexism never existed. I have said that is changing. Do not put word in my posts that I have not said.

And it is like the just about everywhere.

https://edsource.org/2017/girls-now-outnumber-boys-in-high-school-stem-but-still-lag-in-college-and-career/578444

Maybe a small difference of 5% between girls outnumbering boys some places and boys out number girls at others, but then we can't expect it to be perfect 50-50 can we? Or maybe you think it should. In which case, I was wrong. Sexism is alive and well in high-school.

 

2. Maybe that entire post I said earlier about how they're raised with sexism? But rather then blunt saying "You shouldn't worry your pretty head" it's rather subliminal. Which is what I'm saying we should change. That extreme sexism you're saying exists today with girls being told they shouldn't do stuff just because they're a girl? I haven't found a single girl who answered yes when I asked "Do you ever have people tell you you shouldn't do science or math simply because you're a girl?". Out of estimated group size of 39(about 2 classes.). I'll keep asking. But mean while, the evidence is mounting that this extreme sexism you're talking about is gone(except for isolated cases, but that's a red herring) in the recent generation, and rather it's now a subliminal one in how they're raised.

 

3. I'm sorry. Perhaps you were expecting sexism to disappear over night?

It's going to take a while. Our generation seems to have gotten rid of conscious sexism, so there is progress being made. But what progress can we make for those already past college? I'm not God. Neither are you. They're just going to have to deal with it. There's not much that can be done because all the other sexist pigs are still in control. Unless you have a way to change this?

 

4. Did you read what I said? I said not everyone can get into stem fields. I'm sure many many people would want to get into stem fields, but not all of them do. In fact, the majority of them don't. You're arguing that sexism exists for women inside the stem field. Most women aren't in the stem field. Most men aren't in the stem field. Outside the stem field or the business world, sexism has very little effect on women's jobs. So the majority of poor america, don't have any problem with sexism. As I was trying to tell you. But you completely missed the point.

Re-read what I said. Does it seem like I was trying to say people aspire to do those jobs? If so, show me the quote. By all means. If you don't, then you're not even bothering to read my posts.

 

5. Again, read my frickin post. I said "Most of them wouldn't be in the stem field anyway" I then proceeded to describe all the sucky jobs people around me get. Show me where I said "They don't want to get jobs in the stem field."

JUST. READ. THE. POSTS.

And what statistics have you presented to back up your position?

I've asked 39 girls(I think. Might have counted wrong, but above 35) about if they've ever been blatantly told not to do something because they're a girl, I haven't gotten a single yes.

 

There's this link proving you're wrong about high-school, which might I add I'm currently in and you're not:

https://edsource.org/2017/girls-now-outnumber-boys-in-high-school-stem-but-still-lag-in-college-and-career/578444

 

Proves differences in lives, which I correlated to differences in how they're raised:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

 

This shows that there are about 9 million stem jobs, for 330 million Americans. Proving my point that most people can't get into the stem field even if they wanted to, and that they're jobs are alot less fun. Meaning, that not all women would prefer going to work over house work. Also proving, that you're world view of girls everywhere not making it into the stem field simply because they're girls, is wrong. And that you're also wrong about how prevalent the stem field is among americans in general. Further more, you're also wrong that sexism due to differences in jobs are extreme and affect every woman.

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/spring/art01.pdf

 

On top of that, this statistic shows that your claim in another thread that women do not dominate any jobs that aren't degrading is wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by-women-2015-2

 

Your view about how prevalent sexism is today in the modern world is wrong. I have openly provided evidence against most of your statements. I have given links, proof, statistics, and evidence.

Change your view, or otherwise you're just hard headed.

You're a woman? Or, more to the point, you are many women?

No, but I'm actually asking around, unlike you. I haven't had anyone say yes, and even if I did, at this point it would be 1/35....Much less prevalent as you're claiming.

Start providing evidence.

Fair enough. But one might argue that you would need to present evidence to me which shows that women are harrassed to a statistically significant level in the first place. In other words, if you want evidence, you should present figures when you're making a claim first. The claim being that sexism is as abundant as you're saying it is.

Well, actually they are. But that's due to the difference in the number of women to men.

[Lord Antares]

 

OK, that's progress. Going from "the problem doesn't exist" to "the problem exists, but it's a small effect". Same trajectory as the denialism of Global warming, or creationism.

 

That is not a fair comment. I never said the problem doesn't exist, just that it isn't as significant as you say. Saying that the is NO sexual harrassment would be stupid. I thought it went without saying, but maybe I should have been clearer.

 

 

Almost 3/4 of the women did not report the harassment.

 

This confuses me. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that, of the 1/3 women who were harrassed, 3/4 did not report it? I actually condone not reporting it in many cases and I will get to why I think so. This is an important point of discussion for me. But a few other things first.

 

 

We remove drivers who do this.

 

As we do with serious offenders. Someone saying ''hey sexy'' is more like the asshole driver who drives really close to your back. You don't ''remove'' such a person from driving/working.

 

 

 

We don't generally have the police say that it was the driver's first incident, even though it wasn't, and let him off with a warning.

 

 

No we don't, and this doesn't happen with rapists either. They are put to jail. If someone says ''hey sexy'', you don't remove him from work forever. That would be stupid.

 

 

And what statistics have you presented to back up your position?

 

Might I argue that if I were to make a poll on this forum on how many people are male as opposed to female, and sufficient people took part in it over time, it might prove or disprove my point about interest in physics? Surely, if they vote for their gender anonymously without having to expose their identity, a significantly higher percentage of men WOULD mean that women have a lesser interest in physics, no?

 

 

 

Sexual harassment is underreported, because of the tendency to attack the reporters and defend the perpetrators.

 

But in surveys, it's quite common. 1 in 3 women report it being an issue at work. in STEM it's 31%. There's no reason to believe physics is an outlier

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/1-in-3-women-sexually-harassed-work-cosmopolitan_n_6713814.html

 

Alright, this is what I wanted to talk about.

 

''Cosmopolitan surveyed 2,235 full-time and part-time female employees and found that one in three women has experienced sexual harassment at work at some point their lives.''

 

First of all, at some point in their lives which might span up to 50 years. Secondly, something as simple as ''slut'' and ''hey sexy'' constitutes as harrassment in this survey. SURELY, over a years span of time, it is very much expected that you will receive a comment like this at some point in time.

 

This is my main issue here. Serious sexual offense is completely different than mild, rare verbal offense. I have received a few insulting comments during work (through the principle of randomness and interaction with a lot of people) and I didn't report them. But I wasn't sexually harrassed, so that makes it alright, right?

A line needs to be drawn at what reportable sexual harrassment is. Obviously, we won't talk about rape, physical moves etc. as this goes without saying.

 

But look at this. When a man receives a mild insulting comment, he is expected not to report it, otherwise he is a ''pussy''. I would never think to report it either, because it is so weak of an offense, that if I am bothered by it, then I will have problems in life. But if a woman receives mild insulting comments (like slut), she is expected to immediately report it.

By doing this, it would in fact prove that women are the weaker sex, which is the exact opposite of what feminism should be doing.

Do you not agree that everything that is included in the article as sexual offense is not very serious? I could see if someone dismissed a claim for harrassment only because someone said one word to a woman (and keep in might, she might have provoked the insult, the same as in a case of male to male ''verbal violence''. You cannot push women to report every single tidbit thing that she gets insulted with and call them ''independent''. This is contradictory.

 

Of course, if she gets harrassed regularly in such a manner, that is a diffferent issue, but what do you think the percentage of the 31% that is? So the statistic is somewhat skewed, isn't it?

[Raider5678]

Sexual harassment is underreported, because of the tendency to attack the reporters and defend the perpetrators.

 

But in surveys, it's quite common. 1 in 3 women report it being an issue at work. in STEM it's 31%. There's no reason to believe physics is an outlier

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/1-in-3-women-sexually-harassed-work-cosmopolitan_n_6713814.html

 

Almost 3/4 of the women did not report the harassment.

I have already refuted this. The majority of the sexual harassment in this survey, were things like "You look good today" or "Nice ass."

Those are just plain dumb. I can get how nice ass would be annoying, but it's not frickin sexual harassment unless it repeatedly happens again and again.

Another thing, it's at some point in their lives.

How many guys do you think were insulted at some point in their lives?

95%?

OH MY GOD SEXISM!

Obviously, there are cases where there is sexual harassment. But you're making a pot of water seem like a barrel of lava.

 

I usually expect better evidence from you. You usually provide hard concrete proof that nothing can refute. But you're not providing as much in this discussion. Just repeatedly making the claim that we aren't women.

''Cosmopolitan surveyed 2,235 full-time and part-time female employees and found that one in three women has experienced sexual harassment at work at some point their lives.''

 

First of all, at some point in their lives which might span up to 50 years. Secondly, something as simple as ''slut'' and ''hey sexy'' constitutes as harrassment in this survey. SURELY, over a years span of time, it is very much expected that you will receive a comment like this at some point in time.

 

This is my main issue here. Serious sexual offense is completely different than mild, rare verbal offense. I have received a few insulting comments during work (through the principle of randomness and interaction with a lot of people) and I didn't report them. But I wasn't sexually harrassed, so that makes it alright, right?

A line needs to be drawn at what reportable sexual harrassment is. Obviously, we won't talk about rape, physical moves etc. as this goes without saying.

 

But look at this. When a man receives a mild insulting comment, he is expected not to report it, otherwise he is a ''pussy''. I would never think to report it either, because it is so weak of an offense, that if I am bothered by it, then I will have problems in life. But if a woman receives mild insulting comments (like slut), she is expected to immediately report it.

By doing this, it would in fact prove that women are the weaker sex, which is the exact opposite of what feminism should be doing.

Do you not agree that everything that is included in the article as sexual offense is not very serious? I could see if someone dismissed a claim for harrassment only because someone said one word to a woman (and keep in might, she might have provoked the insult, the same as in a case of male to male ''verbal violence''. You cannot push women to report every single tidbit thing that she gets insulted with and call them ''independent''. This is contradictory.

 

Of course, if she gets harrassed regularly in such a manner, that is a diffferent issue, but what do you think the percentage of the 31% that is? So the statistic is somewhat skewed, isn't it?

Totally agreed.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Raider5678

[hypervalent_iodine]

Of course sexism exist, but not at the level which you are making it seem. Seeing some women get bullied away from the forum shows that prejudice against women exists, but it does not show that it is at a statistically significant level.

 

I realise this is merely anecdote, but I did find the coincidence rather striking when the day I stopped getting told I was stupid, immature and uneducated (in the more mild examples) by random people on this forum was the same day I removed my gender from my profile here. Women in general do not tend to participate in these sorts of fora, nor do they tend to engage in online debate so much as men tend to.

 

Perhaps sexism is not so explicit in STEM, but I do think it's hard for you to really grasp the reality of the situation without being in the shoes of someone who lives it. I've been sexually harassed in previous jobs, and even with all my complaints to management about the person in question, and the support of the people who worked directly with me, putting an unlocked door on my work space was all that was ever done to stop the guy. He later got a promotion, and I transferred to another area. In my last job, at a meeting with a visiting collaborator in which I was the only female (of about 10-12 people), I was also the only person whose introduction ended in a five minute investigation into my background and credentials, and the only person who was asked to justify my position on the team. I was exactly as qualified as anyone else there with my job title. No one is outright telling women to get out of STEM I'm sure, but we sure as hell aren't made to feel entirely welcome. As for the difference in the number of women in an area like physics: it would be acceptable if it weren't so symptomatic of a larger cultural issue.

 

Raider, the disparity in gender participation in STEM fields is not so apparent at your level of education as it is later on down the academic path. There are many studies on this, which you might find interesting to look up. I will look these up myself tomorrow if you're interested.

[Raider5678]

Raider, the disparity in gender participation in STEM fields is not so apparent at your level of education as it is later on down the academic path. There are many studies on this, which you might find interesting to look up. I will look these up myself tomorrow if you're interested.

I like this post a lot better, it's not claiming false things.

 

Yes, I'm aware that in college, and the career,world, there is a much larger gender disparity that I do contribute to sexism of past generations.

But since high school has become equal, I'm trying to say that sexism is being purged with my generation as it grows older. Sexism is still alive in the career world.

[zapatos]

-

Edited April 25, 2017 by zapatos

[swansont]

I have already refuted this. The majority of the sexual harassment in this survey, were things like "You look good today" or "Nice ass."

Those are just plain dumb. I can get how nice ass would be annoying, but it's not frickin sexual harassment unless it repeatedly happens again and again.

Another thing, it's at some point in their lives.

How many guys do you think were insulted at some point in their lives?

95%?

OH MY GOD SEXISM!

Obviously, there are cases where there is sexual harassment. But you're making a pot of water seem like a barrel of lava.

 

I usually expect better evidence from you. You usually provide hard concrete proof that nothing can refute. But you're not providing as much in this discussion. Just repeatedly making the claim that we aren't women.

 

 

I am happy to disappoint you. Because if the bar is making stuff up and false equivalences, yours is not the standard that matters to me.

 

For example, I would like you to show me where your so-called refutation is actually addressed. The story cites the definition of harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

 

The only positive is that you represent a shining example of the denialism that's present in this discussion. You can't fathom that the problem exists therefore, it doesn't exist. Make stuff up to support your position.

[Raider5678]

I've asked 39 girls(I think. Might have counted wrong, but above 35) about if they've ever been blatantly told not to do something because they're a girl, I haven't gotten a single yes.

 

There's this link proving you're wrong about high-school, which might I add I'm currently in and you're not:

https://edsource.org/2017/girls-now-outnumber-boys-in-high-school-stem-but-still-lag-in-college-and-career/578444

 

Proves differences in lives, which I correlated to differences in how they're raised:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

 

This shows that there are about 9 million stem jobs, for 330 million Americans. Proving my point that most people can't get into the stem field even if they wanted to, and that they're jobs are alot less fun. Meaning, that not all women would prefer going to work over house work. Also proving, that you're world view of girls everywhere not making it into the stem field simply because they're girls, is wrong. And that you're also wrong about how prevalent the stem field is among americans in general. Further more, you're also wrong that sexism due to differences in jobs are extreme and affect every woman.

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/spring/art01.pdf

 

On top of that, this statistic shows that your claim in another thread that women do not dominate any jobs that aren't degrading is wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by-women-2015-2

I have provided my evidence. Please address this rather then simply saying I'm in denial.

The only positive is that you represent a shining example of the denialism that's present in this discussion. You can't fathom that the problem exists therefore, it doesn't exist. Make stuff up to support your position.

I haven't made things up. I have provided evidence.

We've shown that your evidence may be, and most likely is, biased.

 

You're always saying people should provide evidence for their arguments.

We've provided a perfectly logical argument, set from an objective view point. We've supplied evidence in statistics, showing that a good portion of what you're claiming is false. We've also shown that your evidence isn't reliable.

If you simply ignore our entire argument, and all our evidence we've provided, how is that better then what soap boxers do?

We're trying to engage in an active discussion. Focus on attacking our argument, not us. Simply saying "You're the problem" does not help at all.

For example, I would like you to show me where your so-called refutation is actually addressed. The story cites the definition of harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

Or, as the story ACTUALLY says, "“Sexual harassment hasn’t gone away — it’s just taken on new forms,” Michelle Ruiz and Lauren Ahn wrote. Unlike workplace sexual harassment portrayed in films and pop culture that represent it as overtly aggressive, sexual harassment at work isn’t always easy to spot. It can be a sexual comment in a meeting or even an insinuating Facebook message."

Now, "nice ass" is a sexual comment. And this clearly says that the majority of it is comments as such.

Your evidence even says what we've said.

And I agree, that's wrong. Women shouldn't have to put up with assholes who say things like that.

But it's not the doom and gloom rape and blackmail you're talking about.

 

Additionally, the evidence also says 49% of the women were harassed by male clients or customers, and that 81% in the form of comments.

 

And your past claim that women in STEM fields recieve just as much if not more sexual harrasment is completely and outright false.

31% from the stem field, compared to 42% and 36% in fields like food, hospitality and retail.

 

Is this enough proof that your evidence is biased?

Edited April 25, 2017 by Raider5678

[Lord Antares]

I realise this is merely anecdote, but I did find the coincidence rather striking when the day I stopped getting told I was stupid, immature and uneducated (in the more mild examples) by random people on this forum was the same day I removed my gender from my profile here. Women in general do not tend to participate in these sorts of fora, nor do they tend to engage in online debate so much as men tend to.

 

Perhaps sexism is not so explicit in STEM, but I do think it's hard for you to really grasp the reality of the situation without being in the shoes of someone who lives it. I've been sexually harassed in previous jobs, and even with all my complaints to management about the person in question, and the support of the people who worked directly with me, putting an unlocked door on my work space was all that was ever done to stop the guy. He later got a promotion, and I transferred to another area. In my last job, at a meeting with a visiting collaborator in which I was the only female (of about 10-12 people), I was also the only person whose introduction ended in a five minute investigation into my background and credentials, and the only person who was asked to justify my position on the team. I was exactly as qualified as anyone else there with my job title. No one is outright telling women to get out of STEM I'm sure, but we sure as hell aren't made to feel entirely welcome. As for the difference in the number of women in an area like physics: it would be acceptable if it weren't so symptomatic of a larger cultural issue.

 

Raider, the disparity in gender participation in STEM fields is not so apparent at your level of education as it is later on down the academic path. There are many studies on this, which you might find interesting to look up. I will look these up myself tomorrow if you're interested.

 

Alright, thanks for the perspective, it is some valued information, even though it's anecdotal. I believe you and I must say that this happened to you more times than I would have guessed, which might mean something. HOWEVER, there is a big oddity in reference to swansont's statistic which I would like your input on.

 

His statistic quotes 31% of women being harrassed at some point during their career on the job, which includes once or all the time. It seems to me that your cases of harrassment are greatly disproportial with respect to this statistic. Judging by your case alone, one might assume that close to 100% will be harrassed and almost always multiple times. So, going by this statistic, you are in the highest percentiles of harrassment. In other words, the majority of women haven't experienced the level of harrassment you have.

 

ALSO, a question for you. Since we are arguing that sexism has decreased since ''ye olde ages of the 20th century'', it might be relevant to ask you have you noticed any difference in the last ~5 years. I don't know how old you are, but if you are ''older'' (whatever that means), you might have noticed some difference over time. Not if the people you're working with are the same people, mind you.

 

Also, I don't know if you read my post addressed to Swansont fully, but I think the last bit (the last fragmented quote) is especially overlooked. I would appreciate your input on that.

[Raider5678]

Perhaps sexism is not so explicit in STEM, but I do think it's hard for you to really grasp the reality of the situation without being in the shoes of someone who lives it. I've been sexually harassed in previous jobs, and even with all my complaints to management about the person in question, and the support of the people who worked directly with me, putting an unlocked door on my work space was all that was ever done to stop the guy. He later got a promotion, and I transferred to another area. In my last job, at a meeting with a visiting collaborator in which I was the only female (of about 10-12 people), I was also the only person whose introduction ended in a five minute investigation into my background and credentials, and the only person who was asked to justify my position on the team. I was exactly as qualified as anyone else there with my job title. No one is outright telling women to get out of STEM I'm sure, but we sure as hell aren't made to feel entirely welcome. As for the difference in the number of women in an area like physics: it would be acceptable if it weren't so symptomatic of a larger cultural issue.

Also, would you say that other women around you got harassed just as much as you did?

If not, it may be due to circumstances such as you being exceptionally pretty. Maybe that's sexist, but I'd assume males would be more likely to sexually harass someone who's considered pretty compared to someone who is not.

If so, then would you say we have misrepresented, manipulated, and falsified evidence in any way?

Do you find our argument fair or illogical?

[CharonY]

I think that harassment may be a contributing factor, but especially in competitive areas it may not be the largest. There are a few things that I find interesting. For example, the assertion that this generation is not as sexist as all the previous, and then describe a typical old-fashioned traditional gender role with women cleaning the house and men working in factories. Not realizing that these stereotypes at least contribute to pigeonhole people is fascinating. Another example is that being exceptionally pretty (whatever that means) somehow contributes to harassment. If that is the case, we clearly have an issue.

 

Also it is important to note that we have a (disporportionate) loss of women in the higher tiers of academia in most areas. In biology, for example, a bit more than 50% of graduates are women, but only ~18% of full profs are. I.e. in addition to entry issues, which for some reasons are not as apparent in biology as in physics (which, in my mind boils down to perception rather than any realities of the sciences) but the more competitive it gets, the harder it is for women to succeed over men.

 

The reason here is that due to the competitiveness any slight negative aspect (real or perceived) over their peers can be career killing. Anecdotally, I found that even here, the perception that only the older guys are more sexist not to be accurate. The ones that let disparaging comments slip over a beer or two tend to be in the late 30s-50s segment. Those that are older are often surprisingly positive about that matter.

Interestingly, those also tend to have a traditional family set up. I.e. they being in an academic career, whereas the women caters for all their outside-research needs (including raising children). One argument being brought up is that since women also have to do that, they simply cannot be as productive as their male counterparts. It remains to be seen whether the next generation is going to be better in that regard. A basic issue, it seems, is the assumption that if one does not encounter issues, these must not exist.

 

However since a number of the arguments on this board start with outright denial, I do have my doubts. Also some of the link provided here somehow as an argument that issue does not exist are actually do not support their assertions. For example, there are industries dominated by women, but most of these jobs are not well paid (adding to the statistic that women earn less, even if they have a job). Even worse, for example male nurses tend to earn more than female nurses. Now the reason may not be outright sexism, but contributing factors could be the traditional view of female roles in households. The fact that even women adhere to them do not make the situation less problematic in effect (again, as it contributes to lower earning power).

 

I have also no clue why suicide rates are an evidence for anything. There are so many contributing factors to unpack here, deriving a definite statement is just foolish. On top I will just add that the rate of suicide attempts of women is ~4 times higher in the US than in men, and much of that difference is due to the fact that there is a gender difference in method. Men typically choose more violent and effective methods (e.g. guns) whereas women prefer poisoning and use of pills (and as discussed in another thread here, the latter can often be unsuccessful).

Despite attempts to open doors and provide female role-models over the last 25 or so years that 20% (of Physics students being girls) figure has remained fairly constant. I'm interested to know what a green Physics teacher on the ground can do to give those potential Physicists a fair chance.

 

 

There are a couple of things that I found interesting when looking at student achievements (rather than careers). It appears that in most countries on the high school level girls tend to outperform boys.

 

In boys, data from USA and Canada suggest that chosing a STEM career is correlated with their PISA score in mathematics. In girls this does not seem to be the case and even high scorers are less likely to choose STEM than low scoring boys.

Another aspect that I found intriguing but for which I do not have seen much data, is whether the way we teach (i.e. the tutoring style) has an influence on performance and enjoyment of the topic. I only know anecdotes from colleagues but there was a course held by different instructors and one had a enjoyable part with lots of "nerd-humour" which was well liked by most of the male-dominated class. However, this part also showed the lowest score for the females in class.

I did not think much about it, until another colleague, who constructed an online class and who had a similar sense of humour noted that in his module females were also abnormally low. Again, this are only anecdotes but I wonder what the overall impact is. Note that having a female teacher itself does not necessarily have an influence as the teaching styles may be similar, overall.

[iNow]

I feel like we've done this before

 

This phenomenon is known as the Leaky Pipeline and is very well supported by evidence.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540250500145072

[Strange]

I think the answer is as smiple as: they are not interested in it as much as men are. There is no other logical explanation.

 

 

Or they start off being interested but are made to feel they shouldn't by by their peers, their teachers, their parents, and/or society in general.

I agree with Dr Krettin: what's the problem? The 20% reflects the present general inclination of women towards this subject.

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think that it does reflect the general inclination of women (I realise I am very late to this discussion, and many of the problems have already been highlighted).

 

So the problems with "20%" are that it indicates some serious problems with the way girls and women are treated, that a lot of people are not getting to pursue the career they want, and that the contributions of a lot of potentially brilliant people are being lost.

[Raider5678]

So the problems with "20%" are that it indicates some serious problems with the way girls and women are treated, that a lot of people are not getting to pursue the career they want, and that the contributions of a lot of potentially brilliant people are being lost.

Except the majority of people, men and women, don't get the career they want.

Almost all of them.

[StringJunky]

 

 

The problem is that there is no reason to think that it does reflect the general inclination of women (I realise I am very late to this discussion, and many of the problems have already been highlighted).

 

So the problems with "20%" are that it indicates some serious problems with the way girls and women are treated, that a lot of people are not getting to pursue the career they want, and that the contributions of a lot of potentially brilliant people are being lost.

Although I have expressed this thought, I am open to discussing changing the statistic. Hyper's anecdote seems to suggest there maybe a bigger problem than i realised but nobody's yet coming up with a way forward. It'll take a long time, probably a couple of generations, when the youngsters who want the change are pulling the levers of power, just like with gay equality, which has taken 40-50 years to to get where it is today.

[quickquestion]

There are two options.

1. In primitive times, females built the huts and houses, and the weapons.

2. In primitive times, females did not build the huts and houses, and the weapons.

 

If 1. is correct, there is no biological reason why females are not filling Stem fields today.

[hypervalent_iodine]

There are two options.

1. In primitive times, females built the huts and houses, and the weapons.

2. In primitive times, females did not build the huts and houses, and the weapons.

 

If 1. is correct, there is no biological reason why females are not filling Stem fields today.

Could you expand on this? Because it comes across as ridiculous.

 

Lord Antares and Raider, I'll respond to your posts later today.

[quickquestion]

Now as to why this is the case is another matter. You might argue that women are naturally wired to be focused more on their children and future as a protector and rational thinker as a way to ensure theirs and their children's survival. This is a wild guess but it might be so.

Lord Antares,

Are you saying Physics is Irrational.

 

 

Could you expand on this? Because it comes across as ridiculous.

 

Lord Antares and Raider, I'll respond to your posts later today.

If the evolutionary niche was not to build houses and weapons, then it does not make sense that they would suddenly transcend their niche.

But if house building and weaponing was common in ancient females, then their lack of STEM influence must solely be the result of social limiters.

The third factor being, the cross-sexualization of the specie, the transition and cross-role switching of males and females. If females are inherently out of their niche, then due to cross-sexualization (trans-sexualization genetic and social factors) then the females may find themselves further and further adept at traditionally male roles.

Edited April 25, 2017 by quickquestion

[StringJunky]

Lord Antares,

Are you saying Physics is Irrational.

 

 

If the evolutionary niche was not to build houses and weapons, then it does not make sense that they would suddenly transcend their niche.

But if house building and weaponing was common in ancient females, then their lack of STEM influence must solely be the result of social limiters.

The third factor being, the cross-sexualization of the specie, the transition and cross-role switching of males and females. If females are inherently out of their niche, then due to cross-sexualization (trans-sexualization genetic and social factors) then the females may find themselves further and further adept at traditionally male roles.

We are trying to have a serious conversation here... let's keep it real.