Why is the female crowd not attracted to STEM fields?

[Phi for All]

The cultural references seem to show it is a nurture problem. How women are treated, how they're thought of, seem to play a much bigger role than any kind of interest preferences by gender.

 

I can't help but think that if this thread were about men in science, the title would have been something about men in science. Instead, it's a female "crowd", implying one "side" vs the other. I know, I should stop reading things into it that weren't intended. But it's probably more of an overall attitude like that that keeps women out of STEM in some countries, a way of looking at any woman as different or wrong for the position.

 

And a lot of male geeks are socially awkward as well, and don't relate well to women. This can translate to putting them down in all kinds of subtle ways.

[physica]

 

How is it different from males? It is not that everyone chose the degree solely because of interest. This is an example of unintentional misogyny, where one attributes different motives to females but does not examine the same for males.

 

Perception is a huge part in this. Look at biology. It is as complicated as a natural science can get, yet you see often over 50% female enrolment. However, take a look at the faculty. There it is again male dominated. There is a strong cultural influence in this whole matter. For example, in scientist couples who work in different areas it is not unusual that the woman gets asked why she does not join her husband to support him. And that is even if her track record is stronger than his. The male is almost never asked the same.

 

On the higher hiring rank there are also a number of other aspects that I found that makes it harder for females to succeed, including the type of networks (but that is probably outside of the discussion).

 

Thus in areas with predominantly male leadership there are also unintentional misogyny that may extend throughout the ranks that may further discourage women to enter the field. And note, this is in academia, an area with is traditionally a more progressive institution.

This issue is clearly a complex one. Not one point will completely explain this finding but I'm chucking in my half-baked speculation because I think it should be considered. There is a difference in sexes. Women tend to hold power over men with looks and the mans' desire to sleep with them. I'm not saying men don't use makeup or flirt to get their own way but in society it is more accepted to white knight a woman. If a man hits a woman it's completely unacceptable but if a women hits a man it's generally accepted and sometimes even laughed about (by the way I don't condone any violence against anyone). I made the transition from medical academia to physics. The biggest difference is that I noticed is that maths strips away a lot of things such as image. No matter how much you flirt with someone you're going to be fighting a losing battle convincing them that 2+2=9. People tend to work in fields where they have an advantage. This study shows that attractive women waitresses are more likely to get higher tips:

 

http://tippingresearch.com/uploads/TipAveJASP.pdf

 

For a man who wasn't fortunate enough to receive a good education and ends up waiting tables, women seem to have it easy. I'm not saying that this is right or that it's the natural balance of things but I think we should look at the way society raises women. If you teach a woman from a young age to be interested in image orientated things like fashion, or think it's part of being a girl to flirt to get boys to do things, pay for things or get away with things or act distressed to get out of things, do not be surprised when they gravitate towards jobs where looks and social manipulation give you an edge. Not saying there's none of this but maths does dampen this edge.

 

My mother taught physics, brought her own house with her own money (dad ran away), also brought two flats in poor condition, did most of the building work herself and now rents them out. There are some very strong capable women out there but what my mother always said was: If a woman wants to achieve as much as a man they have to put up with what a man puts up with. Although this doesn't embody the whole problem I think it will help with parents raise tougher daughters. Maths and experimental outcomes don't care what you look like or how you talk.

 

Another angle we have to consider is risk. Going into academia is risky. Funding isn't constant and you are in a sense gambling when you're running experiments because the outcome is going to affect your career. We all shrug when men are more likely to be homeless, have gambling, drug and sex addictions. However, we instantly scream misogyny when we hear that there are less women in risky professions. This is yet again one of the multiple examples double standards and white knighting that many members of society jump to for a few cheap pats on the back.

 

We also have to consider the pace of change. If a woman is an academic in history and takes 5 years out to have 2 children not much will have changed in the field of history in those 5 years. If a woman is in the cutting edge side of particle physics or in a STEM job in nanotechnology and decides to take 5 years out to have 2 children she will lose that edge as STEM changes quickly.

Edited January 22, 2015 by physica

[iNow]

By similar logic as being presented by some here, women are innately not interested in business because so few make it to the executive level of corporations. Women are innately less interested in leadership because so few rise through the ranks of the military. Women are innately less interested in making money because their salaries for the same jobs are lower than males.

 

It's stupid in the extreme to suggest this is about genetics and not culture and environment. While there are various differences across the genders due to biology and genes that should not be ignored, those differences are orders of magnitude too minor to explain the phenomenon under discussion here... A discussion about the way women are consistently and systematically limited in their opportunities, treated as a lower class (often subhuman) citizens by males in power, and consistently given negative social feedback by people in positions of authority when they show interest in topics traditionally considered to be for males only.

 

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2014/09/04/nature-vs-nurture-girls-and-stem

We read with familiar dismay, therefore, the arguments that girls find science “boring,” that attempts to bridge the gender divide “deny human biology and nature,” and that efforts to achieve gender equality in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields are doomed. Attributing the gender gap to biology misses the obvious contribution of societal and institutional biases.

 

The “girls are not interested in STEM” mantra is itself an example. Knowledge of a prejudicial stereotype can lead to enough anxiety that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Although initially applied to racial bias in IQ tests, ‘stereotype threat’ can be extended to gender as well. Negative stereotypes are transmitted from parents and teachers to girls. Reminding girls that they are girls just before a math test can impede their performance. This effect can be seen in children as young as age five. The key point is that as adults, we are able to view stereotypes as generalisations about a group. Unfortunately, young children are more accepting of stereotypes, and may implicitly believe that girls are indeed poor at STEM subjects. As girls grow up, these stereotypes affect their identities as STEM professionals.

<snip>

It is social conditioning, unconscious biases and institutional practices that create an environment where girls feel unwelcome and insecure in STEM fields. UNESCO data show that women are disadvantaged in STEM, with only one in five nations achieving equality. But the cultural variation in itself tells us that it is socialisation and policy intervention, not biology, that matters. Research shows that institutional gender bias develops in several phases. First, children lack female scientist role models from primary school. Second, young undergraduates learn that science privileges a masculine culture, which makes it hard to imagine their career path. Third, diversity barriers are witnessed first-hand by early career researchers. Both male and female faculty are less willing to hire women applicants with the same credentials as men. Given these clear prejudices, we must move away from lazy explanations that attribute women’s under-representation in STEM to their biology. Instead, we must acknowledge that the system actively discourages women in ways both obvious and insidious. We must move away from the individual and address the broader narrative of everyday sexism.

 

Some good references and citations available at the wiki, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Biological_explanations

Edited January 22, 2015 by iNow

[CharonY]

 

This issue is clearly a complex one. Not one point will completely explain this finding

 

I am with you so far. But I have a hard time following you through the rest. For example, the fact that waitresses get more has little impact on academic performance. More so as studies indicate that females are getting underpaid relative to their colleagues and get underevaluated. For example in a simple double-blind study, people were asked to evaluate someone based on application materials. The only difference was that package had either a female or a male name. The "male" applicant was evaluated significantly better than the "female" (Moss-Racusin et al. PNAS October 9, 2012 vol. 109 no. 41 16474-16479).

 

There are numerous more studies like that, too. While child care is an issue, i.e. a burden that weighs more on women than men, it should also be noted that female academics take significantly less time off (certainly not years) as compared to average. And here there is also the cultural bias. It is often expected that the woman takes care of the child while the husband continues the career. Successful couples balance these things out (i.e. the husband also takes time off), yet it is socially less accepted.

Also many female academics forgo the chance of having children.

 

Also note that the gender bias is not only enacted by men, also women are culpable of it.

[physica]

their salaries for the same jobs are lower than males

This has been repeated so much it has been accepted as fact even though the analysis supporting this was very one dimensional. If you take the average salaries men earn more but there are more part-time workers in the female camp. When this is taken into account the gap doesn't exist. When we compare education and pay men still get paid more but when we look at the types of jobs being done men generally work more hours and do higher risk jobs. This video will help dispel this fact that is almost taken religiously as truth:

 

 

It's very well referenced with direct stats

 

I am with you so far. But I have a hard time following you through the rest. For example, the fact that waitresses get more has little impact on academic performance.

You need to go back and reread what I've written. Where have I said that this will affect academic performance? The whole point of the post is that if you raise someone with attributes such as social manipulation in terms of looks etc they will do better in jobs where it will give them an advantage and will not go for mathematically orientated jobs where their social manipulation skills have less of an effect. You've missed out the major point:

 

Another angle we have to consider is risk. Going into academia is risky. Funding isn't constant and you are in a sense gambling when you're running experiments because the outcome is going to affect your career. We all shrug when men are more likely to be homeless, have gambling, drug and sex addictions. However, we instantly scream misogyny when we hear that there are less women in risky professions. This is yet again one of the multiple examples double standards and white knighting that many members of society jump to for a few cheap pats on the back.

 

As for the following:

 

There are numerous more studies like that, too. While child care is an issue, i.e. a burden that weighs more on women than men, it should also be noted that female academics take significantly less time off (certainly not years) as compared to average. And here there is also the cultural bias. It is often expected that the woman takes care of the child while the husband continues the career. Successful couples balance these things out (i.e. the husband also takes time off), yet it is socially less accepted.

Also many female academics forgo the chance of having children.

My main approach is that women do not choose to pursue math intensive fields because their social manipulation skills do not give them an edge in these fields. Also we have to consider the risk taking nature of women. This study showed that whilst women are underrepresented in math intensive fields the ones who are actually in the field are not held back and succeed just as well as men:

 

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/Women-Academic-Science.pdf?utm_source=nytimes&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=pspitimes

 

"Importantly, of those who obtain doctorates in math-intensive fields, men and women entering the professoriate

have equivalent access to tenure-track academic jobs in science, and they persist and are remunerated at comparable

rates—with some caveats that we discuss. The transition from graduate programs to assistant professorships shows

more pipeline leakage in the fields in which women are already very prevalent (psychology, life science, social

science) than in the math-intensive fields in which they are underrepresented but in which the number of females

holding assistant professorships is at least commensurate with (if not greater than) that of males. That is, invitations to

interview for tenure-track positions in math-intensive fields—as well as actual employment offers—reveal that female

PhD applicants fare at least as well as their male counterparts in math-intensive fields."

[CharonY]

You are working under the assumption that females are encouraged to careers that require social skills and are discouraged from careers that do not need it, correct?

That, however, is cultural bias as others have pointed out.

[physica]

You are working under the assumption that females are encouraged to careers that require social skills and are discouraged from careers that do not need it, correct?

That, however, is cultural bias as others have pointed out.

No I respect women enough to acknowledge that they aren't mindless cattle that can be herded from pillar to post with ease. What I am saying is that society generally encourages them to be more socially manipulative in terms of flirting, looks etc. Because of this cultural bias THEY CHOOSE THEMSELVES to go into careers where their social manipulation gives them an edge.

 

Once again we are ignoring the risk taking point, the study I posted showing that women are given equal opportunity to progress in math orientated subjects if they choose to go into that field and the video raised about the gender pay gap (i appreciate that you personally didn't raise the gender pay gap issue with me). Does that mean you accept them or are you trying to sweep these points under the rug?

 

Anyone want to comment on the fact that never married white women working full time actually earned more (only slightly admittedly) than never married white men working full time in the 1950s data???

Edited January 22, 2015 by physica

[swansont]

This issue is clearly a complex one. Not one point will completely explain this finding but I'm chucking in my half-baked speculation because I think it should be considered. There is a difference in sexes. Women tend to hold power over men with looks and the mans' desire to sleep with them. I'm not saying men don't use makeup or flirt to get their own way but in society it is more accepted to white knight a woman.

 

That points to the issue of women perhaps not wanting to be treated as sex objects, particularly in a professional environment.

[physica]

 

That points to the issue of women perhaps not wanting to be treated as sex objects, particularly in a professional environment.

We seem to be ignoring a huge part of the discussion here and simplifying it. Some women will definitely feel this but we can't know for sure how much of this is justified. My later points (which haven't been refuted) about the pay gap myth being a dishonestly pushed around as if it's divine truth when it's a really a result of poorly analysis and generalisation of results and the study showing that women in STEM fields progress just as well raise a more interesting point. If you tell a group that they are victims enough they will start to believe it. Conformation bias is a powerful thing. We may never know but we must still consider the question: how many women have been put off these fields because of the half-baked lies that have been forced down their throats? Maybe the cultural bias that stops women going into STEM is the constant stream of white knights looking for and creating victims so they can fight their corner.

 

A similar lie was the 1 in 5 women get raped in college. When you actually look at the methodology they class the woman being raped if they regretted sleeping with the person later on. Once you excluded these from the analysis surprise surprise it was the same as the national average. Again we may never know how many women get put off going to a college of their choice and staying at home and going to a local college because of this lie. When will white knights realise that women are very capable and independent and twisting facts to enforce a victim status will only disadvantage the "victims" that they are "protecting".

Edited January 22, 2015 by physica

[elfmotat]

How is it different from males? It is not that everyone chose the degree solely because of interest. This is an example of unintentional misogyny, where one attributes different motives to females but does not examine the same for males.

Just to nitpick your terminology, I find it a bit disingenuous to call a form of hatred "unintentional." I'm pretty aware of when I do/don't hate somebody. "Unintentional sexism," maybe, but misogyny? No.

Perception is a huge part in this. Look at biology. It is as complicated as a natural science can get, yet you see often over 50% female enrolment. However, take a look at the faculty. There it is again male dominated.

What exactly does this establish? That there's no real connection between faculty and student gender demographics?

For example, in scientist couples who work in different areas it is not unusual that the woman gets asked why she does not join her husband to support him. And that is even if her track record is stronger than his. The male is almost never asked the same.

Do you actually have any data on how frequently, where, or to whom this scenario takes place?

On the higher hiring rank there are also a number of other aspects that I found that makes it harder for females to succeed, including the type of networks (but that is probably outside of the discussion).

Source?

Thus in areas with predominantly male leadership there are also unintentional misogyny that may extend throughout the ranks that may further discourage women to enter the field. And note, this is in academia, an area with is traditionally a more progressive institution.

I fail to see the "thus." All I saw in that post was opinion and non-cited claims.

The cultural references seem to show it is a nurture problem. How women are treated, how they're thought of, seem to play a much bigger role than any kind of interest preferences by gender.

I don't know how to argue with a blanket declaration. I also weep for the world you seem to see around you -- where women are so easily manipulated that cultural programming plays a more dominant role in their career choice than their own desires and preferences. I find the view that women lack agency derogatory.

I can't help but think that if this thread were about men in science, the title would have been something about men in science. Instead, it's a female "crowd", implying one "side" vs the other. I know, I should stop reading things into it that weren't intended. But it's probably more of an overall attitude like that that keeps women out of STEM in some countries, a way of looking at any woman as different or wrong for the position.

I don't know what you mean by "sides." The only sides in this thread seem to be "biology plays at least some part in career choice," vs. "biology absolutely does not under any circumstances have any sort of influence on career choice." I think the former is a more sound approach.

By similar logic as being presented by some here, women are innately not interested in business because so few make it to the executive level of corporations. Women are innately less interested in leadership because so few rise through the ranks of the military.

Yes, I would say that's probably accurate, except the military part where physical strength/endurance has an influence on who does/doesn't get in.

Just like men are innately more interested in dangerous careers. The workplace-death gender ratio is ~20:1, not because of sexism against men, but because men are more likely to take a dangerous job.

Women are innately less interested in making money because their salaries for the same jobs are lower than males.

Except that's not true. The wage gap compares overall mean salaries, not on a job-by-job basis. When you control for career choice the gap shrinks to <5%. When you add in the fact that men are more likely to work extra hours and take less on time leave, it shrinks even further.

It's stupid in the extreme to suggest this is about genetics and not culture and environment.

Why is it stupid and extreme? My only position is "biology plays at least some role." Yours seems to be "biology plays exactly zero role." That seems far less reasonable to me.

While there are various differences across the genders due to biology and genes that should not be ignored, those differences are orders of magnitude too minor to explain the phenomenon under discussion here...

Source?

A discussion about the way women are consistently and systematically limited in their opportunities, treated as a lower class (often subhuman) citizens by males in power, and consistently given negative social feedback by people in positions of authority when they show interest in topics traditionally considered to be for males only.

I thought we already established that nobody is saying sexism doesn't exist, nor that social progress can't be made.

 

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2014/09/04/nature-vs-nurture-girls-and-stem

 

These are the opinions of a blogger, and I'm not sure what you expect me to do with them. Would you like me to read through and respond line-by-line like I'm doing here? There isn't anything concrete to respond to in the block of text you quoted.

 

 

 

 

That points to the issue of women perhaps not wanting to be treated as sex objects, particularly in a professional environment.

 

I've never understood what the term "sex object" means, outside of the literal. What's the difference between "finding someone sexually attractive" and "sexual objectification"? Is there a clear distinction? It just seems like an overused scary buzzword.

Edited January 22, 2015 by elfmotat

[swansont]

I've never understood what the term "sex object" means, outside of the literal. What's the difference between "finding someone sexually attractive" and "sexual objectification"? Is there a clear distinction? It just seems like an overused scary buzzword.

 

I doubt most women in that situation would agree. Which is probably part of the problem. I've heard some of the stories. Scary? Yes. Buzzword? No, not so much. Some of the behavior I've read about is truly horrifying. I think there's a tendency to dismiss them as isolated acts, but acknowledging the sheer volume of them makes it harder to hang on to that self-denial. I think part of it is that many decent people may find it hard to imagine people behaving so boorishly. The perpetrators don't see what they are doing as wrong, especially when it's reinforced by others with the same attitudes.

 

The difference is how you act, and the circumstance under which you might act. Finding someone attractive is one thing, but making that a focus of your supposedly professional interaction with them isn't appropriate. The attitude one projects is that a woman's primary function is so that a man can have sex with her, as if it's an entitlement. This problem is amplified when men are in a majority of positions of authority/seniority, which is one of the conditions found in STEM areas.

 

Again: for a peek of the lay of the land, see what's been going on with gamergate. There's a whole subculture of people who think nothing of threatening women with rape and other violence. Look up stories describing sexual harassment and sexual assault.

 

 

A similar lie was the 1 in 5 women get raped in college. When you actually look at the methodology they class the woman being raped if they regretted sleeping with the person later on. Once you excluded these from the analysis surprise surprise it was the same as the national average. Again we may never know how many women get put off going to a college of their choice and staying at home and going to a local college because of this lie. When will white knights realise that women are very capable and independent and twisting facts to enforce a victim status will only disadvantage the "victims" that they are "protecting".

 

A citation for this assertion would be nice. As in "required". Regardless, it's not really on topic unless the claim is college sexual assault is somehow preferentially targeted at STEM students

[CharonY]

 

Do you actually have any data on how frequently, where, or to whom this scenario takes place?

 

Obviously these tidbits are anecdotal in nature (but from a sample size of about 30 ish science couples, no husbands have ever been asked to support their wives; whereas almost all females have, at one point or another been asked whether they want to give up their careers to have kids), but the discrimination part is evidenced in the study cited above. Personal experience is just in agreement with that (although I will not deny that these experiences are not strong evidence in itself).

 

With regards to misogyny I may have chosen the wrong term. What I meant is unconscious misogyny. Especially in academia you will find few who openly suggest that females are less capable. Yet the actions (again referencing to gender bias in evaluation) points at it. This, is especially troubling in male-dominated seniority situations where the lack of females is taken as evidence of ones own superiority.

[elfmotat]

I doubt most women in that situation would agree. Which is probably part of the problem. I've heard some of the stories. Scary? Yes. Buzzword? No, not so much. Some of the behavior I've read about is truly horrifying. I think there's a tendency to dismiss them as isolated acts, but acknowledging the sheer volume of them makes it harder to hang on to that self-denial. I think part of it is that many decent people may find it hard to imagine people behaving so boorishly. The perpetrators don't see what they are doing as wrong, especially when it's reinforced by others with the same attitudes.

I never denied the existence of sexual harassment, I asked for a definition of objectification.

 

The difference is how you act, and the circumstance under which you might act. Finding someone attractive is one thing, but making that a focus of your supposedly professional interaction with them isn't appropriate. The attitude one projects is that a woman's primary function is so that a man can have sex with her, as if it's an entitlement. This problem is amplified when men are in a majority of positions of authority/seniority, which is one of the conditions found in STEM areas.

I could be annoying and say that the primary function of any animal is reproduction, but I won't. The difference is still not so clear to me. How would you distinguish the behavior of someone treating a woman as if her primary function is sex from the behavior of someone treating her as if sex is one of her functions?

 

Again: for a peek of the lay of the land, see what's been going on with gamergate. There's a whole subculture of people who think nothing of threatening women with rape and other violence. Look up stories describing sexual harassment and sexual assault.

I don't think you're very well informed on this topic.

 

 

A citation for this assertion would be nice. As in "required". Regardless, it's not really on topic unless the claim is college sexual assault is somehow preferentially targeted at STEM students

I agree it's not very relevant, but:

 

[physica]

I agree it's not very relevant, but:

Thank you for the video but I feel that people are misunderstanding my point. I'm pointing out that when it comes to women victimhood the waters get muddied very quickly. I've backed up my statements apart from the last one which you kindly did however, I see very little evidence from the people talking about women being victims in STEM.

[swansont]

I could be annoying and say that the primary function of any animal is reproduction, but I won't. The difference is still not so clear to me. How would you distinguish the behavior of someone treating a woman as if her primary function is sex from the behavior of someone treating her as if sex is one of her functions?

 

Most animals do not have a demarcation between professional and non-professional behaviors.

 

I don't think you're very well informed on this topic.

That's possible, but as your video is a discussion of games causing sexism, and that was not my claim, it's not much of a rebuttal. The host of the video does admit that threats of violence have occurred, though also claims that we don't know if they were from people within the gaming community. That's debatable, but also irrelevant. The threats exist, and your video backs that up.

 

At the end she mentions Anita Sarkeesian and starts addressing the validity of her critiques — that's beside the point. It's that Ms. Sarkeesian was threatened with violence for making the observations in the first place. (And other women as well). And are we really supposed to believe that all such threats came from outside the gaming community?

[iNow]

My only position is "biology plays at least some role." Yours seems to be "biology plays exactly zero role." That seems far less reasonable to me.

Perhaps that's because it's an obvious straw man of my position, as evidenced by the actual words I wrote... Words that you even took the time to quote yourself immediately after making this assertion above.

[elfmotat]

 

Obviously these tidbits are anecdotal in nature (but from a sample size of about 30 ish science couples, no husbands have ever been asked to support their wives; whereas almost all females have, at one point or another been asked whether they want to give up their careers to have kids), but the discrimination part is evidenced in the study cited above. Personal experience is just in agreement with that (although I will not deny that these experiences are not strong evidence in itself).

 

With regards to misogyny I may have chosen the wrong term. What I meant is unconscious misogyny. Especially in academia you will find few who openly suggest that females are less capable. Yet the actions (again referencing to gender bias in evaluation) points at it. This, is especially troubling in male-dominated seniority situations where the lack of females is taken as evidence of ones own superiority.

 

Fair enough. I have little doubt that unconscious bias plays a role in, for example, the hiring process.

 

Thank you for the video but I feel that people are misunderstanding my point. I'm pointing out that when it comes to women victimhood the waters get muddied very quickly. I've backed up my statements apart from the last one which you kindly did however, I see very little evidence from the people talking about women being victims in STEM.

 

I'd say more generally that advocacy statistics (the methodology) is misleading/poor.

 

Most animals do not have a demarcation between professional and non-professional behaviors.

 

I'm still not really clear on objectification. For example, is it acceptable for me to ask out someone in my engineering class who I find sexually attractive? Am I objectifying her by doing this? Why or why not?

 

That's possible, but as your video is a discussion of games causing sexism, and that was not my claim, it's not much of a rebuttal. The host of the video does admit that threats of violence have occurred, though also claims that we don't know if they were from people within the gaming community. That's debatable, but also irrelevant. The threats exist, and your video backs that up.

At the end she mentions Anita Sarkeesian and starts addressing the validity of her critiques — that's beside the point. It's that Ms. Sarkeesian was threatened with violence for making the observations in the first place. (And other women as well). And are we really supposed to believe that all such threats came from outside the gaming community?

 

Your claim was that there is a subculture of angry misogynist nerds. If true, it's much smaller than you're making it out to be. Nobody knows who sent the death threats -- it could very well be that she sent them herself. She's been exposed for fraudulent behavior in the past. (For example, lying about playing or even liking video games before she started raising funds for her "Tropes vs. Women" series.) Maybe it was an angry woman-hating nerd like you think. Maybe it was a radical feminist trying to make it look like an angry woman-hating nerd. You don't know any better than I do.

Perhaps that's because it's an obvious straw man of my position, as evidenced by the actual words I wrote... Words that you even took the time to quote yourself immediately after making this assertion above.

 

If I misrepresented your position then I apologize. You have expressed numerous times that it's a bizarre and unbelievable notion that sexually dimorphic interests could be in part responsible for the gender gap in STEM fields.

[swansont]

I'm still not really clear on objectification. For example, is it acceptable for me to ask out someone in my engineering class who I find sexually attractive? Am I objectifying her by doing this? Why or why not?

If you're the professor (or TA), then it's definitely not OK to do so.

 

Your claim was that there is a subculture of angry misogynist nerds. If true, it's much smaller than you're making it out to be. Nobody knows who sent the death threats -- it could very well be that she sent them herself. She's been exposed for fraudulent behavior in the past. (For example, lying about playing or even liking video games before she started raising funds for her "Tropes vs. Women" series.) Maybe it was an angry woman-hating nerd like you think. Maybe it was a radical feminist trying to make it look like an angry woman-hating nerd. You don't know any better than I do.

I never quoted a number, so I don't see how it could be smaller (or larger) than I made it out to be, and one of the first problems one encounters is to simply not believe the target. It's so easy to dismiss any problems that way. They're all just making it up.

[elfmotat]

If you're the professor (or TA), then it's definitely not OK to do so.

 

I'm not. But if I was would it qualify as objectification?

 

I never quoted a number, so I don't see how it could be smaller (or larger) than I made it out to be, and one of the first problems one encounters is to simply not believe the target. It's so easy to dismiss any problems that way. They're all just making it up.

 

Claim: there is a subculture of angry misogynist gamers.

Evidence: anonymous death threats issued against popular feminist video game critic.

 

You have not established that angry misogynist gamers sent the threats. The threats were anonymous. It's not about who should or should not be believed -- there is no evidence in either direction so the default is to believe neither. Belief is reserved for when there is evidence.

 

I'm definitely sure I never said that death threats should be dismissed. That still doesn't mean you know who sent them.

Edited January 22, 2015 by elfmotat

[iNow]

You have expressed numerous times that it's a bizarre and unbelievable notion that sexually dimorphic interests could be in part responsible for the gender gap in STEM fields.

You have here now just introduced two new qualifiers to your previous claims. The addition of terms "could be" and "in part" are welcome hedges to your previous monolithic and almost certainly inaccurate suggestions on this topic.

[elfmotat]

You have here now just introduced two new qualifiers to your previous claims. The addition of terms "could be" and "in part" are welcome hedges to your previous monolithic and almost certainly inaccurate suggestions on this topic.

 

They aren't new qualifiers at all. If you go back and read my posts you'll notice that I've been using them all along.

[physica]

I never quoted a number, so I don't see how it could be smaller (or larger) than I made it out to be, and one of the first problems one encounters is to simply not believe the target. It's so easy to dismiss any problems that way. They're all just making it up.

This is what's wrong. We're going round in circles. We busted the pay gap myth and produced a study that showed that women in STEM climb the ladder just as quickly. The people who are stating that women are victims in STEM should provide some evidence. iNow and swansont, I appreciate that you're usually very reasonable people but I'm afraid with this topic you guys seem to be muttering rumours. If you can provide some evidence that women are victims in STEM I believe that the thread will develop in a healthy manner.

[iNow]

They aren't new qualifiers at all. If you go back and read my posts you'll notice that I've been using them all along.

Well, no. You haven't, actually. I checked and the assertions made in each of your previous posts were done with certainty and did NOT include qualifiers like "could be."

 

Here again are YOUR words, the ones to which people are responding:

 

biology does play a factor

at least some of it is almost certainly due to sexually dimorphic interests. Somehow biological, yes.

biology plays at least some part in career choice

Either you're being intentionally disingenuous, you suffer some problem with basic reading comprehension, or some combination of both those things. Given the topic, it's more likely the former. Edited January 22, 2015 by iNow

[elfmotat]

Well, no. You haven't, actually. I checked and the assertions made in each of your previous posts were done with certainty and did NOT include qualifiers like "could be."

 

Here again are YOUR words, the ones to which people are responding:

 

Either you're being intentionally disingenuous, you suffer some problem with basic reading comprehension, or some combination of both those things. Given the topic, it's more likely the former.

 

The qualifier "in part" is included in all but the first of those. The "could be" was in reference to your incredulity at the notion that biology "could" play a factor. I didn't say it "could be" a factor. I said it is almost certainly a factor.

Edited January 22, 2015 by elfmotat

[iNow]

We busted the pay gap myth <...> Now and swansont, I appreciate that you're usually very reasonable people but I'm afraid with this topic you guys seem to be muttering rumours.

Nobody is talking about the pay gap. I encourage you to reread in context the post where I introduced the concept: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87451-why-is-the-female-crowd-not-attracted-to-stem-fields/?p=849094

.

I didn't say it "could be" a factor.

Yet in the post immediately preceding this one you said you had. Which is it? Make up your mind.