Why is the female crowd not attracted to STEM fields?

[elfmotat]

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

 

I have been using the qualifier "in part" throughout. I used "could be" once, in reference to your thinking it is bizarre that biology "could be" a factor. That doesn't mean I'm saying it isn't a factor. It's a statement about your position, not mine.

Edited January 22, 2015 by elfmotat

[iNow]

I've clarified it several times now for you, yet you appear to be incapable of accurately comprehending my position.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Biological_explanations

[elfmotat]

I've clarified it several times now for you, yet you appear to be incapable of accurately comprehending my position.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Biological_explanations

 

Your position is that males have on average better spatial intelligence? Okay. That seems corollary to my point. Your previous posts (save the one where you originally posted the wiki link) seemed to express incredulity at the notion of biological explanations.

[Phi for All]

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.

How is it a blanket declaration? I basically said I think the problem as presented here is more nurture than nature.

 

And you can stop crying, because your misleading vividness isn't really helping this discussion. You're resorting to some uncharacteristic fallacious logic, when you're normally very careful about that.

 

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.

 

Seriously? You don't think referring to the "female crowd", as opposed to the men in STEM, isn't setting up sides?

 

And really, when did you start resorting to strawmen so often? My stance is clearly "more nurture than nature", not "biology absolutely does not under any circumstances have any sort of..." Yeah. It's like a parody of strawmanning. Why?

[hypervalent_iodine]

This reminds me of a discussion in another thread (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79192-many-women-on-the-site/).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd be surprised if you have ever encountered a female.

 

 

 

I am both female and a chemist, so be surprised.

 

Also:

 

http://www4.lu.se/o.o.i.s/31332

 

Though I somewhat suspect that the value for chemical and biological scientists is contributed to more so by biology than by chemistry.

 

Further in response to one of CharonY's posts, I found this article. http://www.rsc.org/images/womensretention_tcm18-139215.pdf

 

I found it somewhat interesting because it reports (among other things) that the increasing numbers of females going into chemistry PhD's is not enough to increase the number of females at all levels. It states that,

 

 

Women are put off academic careers more than men partly because they do not want to work on short term contracts while undertaking post-doctoral research in universities. Early selection of the best scientists for longer term research fellowships, like the Royal Society Fellowships, with clear exit points, would provide a clear path to an academic position. Evidence is that women would be more likely to opt for an academic career if they are clear at the outset of their chances of success.

 

The evidence is also that female PhD students are more sensitive to issues of work-life balance than men. It is therefore important that science departments take note of work on good practice, and of schemes like Athena SWAN, to improve the working environment. This will in turn provide more positive inducements for women, and some men, to stay in research. It is also important to realise that culture varies from research group to research group and so the implementation of good practice does need to be in all parts of the departments and not just to processes affecting staff directly.

 

It also mentions that the overall experience for men completing chemistry PhD's tends to be more positive overall because their expectations are lower from the outset, which is an interesting point and not something I had really thought of myself. However, the overarching thing (at least for chemistry) seems to be that females are more likely to be put off because of the nature of academic research, possibly because of the work-life balance issues mentioned above. It's true that in theory, scientists have more liberty in their positions to create a greater work-life balance, but in practice I would have to question how many actually utilise that.

I quoted this because it reminded me of a Freakonomics podcast I was listening to probably around the same time (http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/24/women-are-not-men-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/). It was a long time ago that I listened to it, but IIRC, they look at a couple of studies that address gender pay gaps. In one, I remember the authors set up this game where you had two options, one involved more risk but had a higher payoff and the other a smaller risk and low payoff. They found that in patriarchal societies, women were much, much less likely to go the risky route than men were. In one example of a matriarchal society (I want to say in India somewhere), the exact opposite was true. The other study found that in terms of salary and pay rises, women were less likely to negotiate for a higher pay for themselves than men, but if they were negotiating on behalf of someone else then the numbers were about the same.

 

The example of the risk taking game seems to point to the idea that how likely a woman is to be competitive or take risks is driven by societal and cultural expectations more than any inherent properties. IMO, this ties back neatly to the quote in my old post:

 

Evidence is that women would be more likely to opt for an academic career if they are clear at the outset of their chances of success.

I'd also like to mention that I find it a little amusing that I'm the only female so far in this thread.

[elfmotat]

How is it a blanket declaration? I basically said I think the problem as presented here is more nurture than nature.

 

And you can stop crying, because your misleading vividness isn't really helping this discussion. You're resorting to some uncharacteristic fallacious logic, when you're normally very careful about that.

 

I suppose I could do without the colorful language, but I don't understand your objection. You think the gender gap in STEM is mostly cultural in origin. You assume (or at least implied) that cultural influence is driving women away from the careers they really​ want to be doing. I just find the lack of respect for womens' agency a bit irritating. These are adult women making adult decisions about the fields they want to go into. It almost sounds like you're saying they've been brainwashed by society into not majoring in engineering.

 

The notion that culture is creating the gap is hard to see. Shouldn't this mean that in gender-egalitarian societies the STEM demographics should float somewhere around 50-50? Because that would be demonstrably false. See, e.g., Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

 

As an aside, it's also a bit funny that nobody ever mentions the workplace-death gender gap, which is about 20:1 male to female workplace deaths. Do you think this is culturally motivated? Do you think males are biologically predisposed to be willing to do more dangerous work? The latter is certainly demonstrable, with testosterone being positively correlated with risky behavior.

 

Seriously? You don't think referring to the "female crowd", as opposed to the men in STEM, isn't setting up sides?

 

Not really. No more than "male crowd" would be, at least. How would you rephrase the title to make it seem less divisive?

 

And really, when did you start resorting to strawmen so often? My stance is clearly "more nurture than nature", not "biology absolutely does not under any circumstances have any sort of..." Yeah. It's like a parody of strawmanning. Why?

 

I wasn't referring to your stance (which I thought was pretty plain from the wording and context -- but I guess not), I was referring to the general sentiment of the thread. The original source of disagreement was between myself and iNow, because he expressed incredulity at the notion that biology had much if anything to do with it. Obviously my wording was hyperbolic, so if that annoyed you I apologize.

Edited January 23, 2015 by elfmotat

[iNow]

Your position is that males have on average better spatial intelligence?

I take it you didn't bother reading past the first sentence or paragraph? That was hardly the point intended when I shared that link. Consider exploring the next several sections if you're genuinely interested in better understanding my perspective.

 

To further Phi's point, of course nature and nurture both always play various roles, but nearly everything in the literature on this specific issue points heavily toward the role of nurture / socially imposed obstacles / family and cultural expectations and feedback, and similar nonbiological explanations. That said, there's no need to continuously strawman and misrepresent others if for some reason you disagree and hold a different perspective.

Edited January 23, 2015 by iNow

[elfmotat]

I take it you didn't bother reading past the first sentence or paragraph? That was hardly the point intended when I shared that link. Consider exploring the next several sections if you're genuinely interested in better understanding my perspective.

 

You didn't link to those sections. You linked to the "biological explanations" section, for which there is only a short paragraph about spatial intelligence. What am I supposed to assume when you link to a specific section of a wiki page?

 

To further Phi's point, of course nature and nurture both always play various roles, but nearly everything in the literature on this specific issue points heavily toward the role of nurture / socially imposed obstacles / family and cultural expectations and feedback, and similar nonbiological explanations. That said, there's no need to continuously strawman and misrepresent others if for some reason you disagree and hold a different perspective.

 

I completely understand what you're saying. I'm definitely not trying to misrepresent anyone's position. If you can locate any instances where I have done so and not corrected myself, please point them out.

Edited January 23, 2015 by elfmotat

[ajb]

I have seen a lot of news pertaining to the lack of female participants within the STEM fields, and I was wondering why this is. Am I making an unjustified generalization of females simply based on hyped news? Or is this a real problem? Are there any major factors involved in this trend?

Okay, in my experience in the UK physics at all levels is male dominated. This starts at high school and continues throughout all levels.

 

Mathematics is more like 50-50 in school, slightly more males as undergraduates at university, clearly more males at postgraduate level, postdocs even more male dominated, a few female lectures and virtually no female professors.

 

The reasons for this, I think are mostly biological rather than cultural. That said, the two cannot be completely separated. Society will to some extent reflect our biological evolution, but we can recognise this and remove all barriers, both real and perceived stopping women going into STEM careers. However, I am not sure we should actively go past that point and somehow artificially ensure we have male-female balance. In fact, I would say a similar thing for any under represented demographic.

 

On the other hand, males make up around 10% of the nursing workforce in the UK and USA (according to Wikipedia). Should we do more to break down barriers stopping men becoming nurses? If so why? And shouldn't they ware the same uniforms? (I joke with the last one)

[swansont]

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.

 

hiring/salary bias

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/science/bias-persists-against-women-of-science-a-study-says.html?_r=0

 

unprofessionalism and sexual harassment (and this list can be made a whole lot longer)

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/13/researchers-react-study-about-sexual-harassment-scientists-field

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/17/young-scientists-face-rampant-sexual-harassment-in-the-field/

http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/search/label/harassment

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/01/30/from-the-field-hazed-tells-her-story-of-harassment/

[ajb]

unprofessionalism and sexual harassment (and this list can be made a whole lot longer)

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/13/researchers-react-study-about-sexual-harassment-scientists-field

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/17/young-scientists-face-rampant-sexual-harassment-in-the-field/

http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/search/label/harassment

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/01/30/from-the-field-hazed-tells-her-story-of-harassment/

I quickly read the above and they do highlight some very extreme examples. Boys will be boys, but the behaviour listed above is just so unprofessional. You have to be careful with rude jokes and so on, but again the examples you link to are beyond that. Shameful behaviour.

[Danijel Gorupec]

The reasons for this, I think are mostly biological rather than cultural. That said, the two cannot be completely separated. Society will to some extent reflect our biological evolution, but we can recognise this and remove all barriers, both real and perceived stopping women going into STEM careers. However, I am not sure we should actively go past that point and somehow artificially ensure we have male-female balance. In fact, I would say a similar thing for any under represented demographic.

Yes, I was just thinking about it. I believe there is some sort of leveraging effect... Even a small difference in biological predispositions/interests will be highly intensified in our brains (people tend to segregate, put into niches, make stereotypes - I guess this is a way our brains simplify the world) and will then lead to large cultural differentiation.

[Phi for All]

I just find the lack of respect for womens' agency a bit irritating. These are adult women making adult decisions about the fields they want to go into. It almost sounds like you're saying they've been brainwashed by society into not majoring in engineering.

Suddenly, I have an assumed lack of respect for women's agency, because I think many societies don't treat women equally in the workplace? This argument reminds me of the "if you don't support the war, you must hate our soldiers" fallacy.

 

You attempt to put down any kind of brainwashing as absurd. Personally, I consider the daily barrage of advertising many people get to be a form of brainwashing. In that context, women are very definitely being subjected to daily abuse. But you seem to be saying that because we're adults and can make our own decisions, that type of manipulation is perfectly OK, that's it's insulting to even suggest that it's an influence on women's career choices. I think many people ignore small, daily, accumulated brainwashings like this, in much the same way the frog doesn't jump out of the pot if the heat is increased slowly over time.

 

The notion that culture is creating the gap is hard to see. Shouldn't this mean that in gender-egalitarian societies the STEM demographics should float somewhere around 50-50? Because that would be demonstrably false. See, e.g., Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

 

 

You need to stop looking at this as an all or nothing problem. It's not just culture that creates this gap, NOBODY has been saying that! It's much more likely that there are many factors to be considered. You seem to need women to be hard-wired against science biologically, with no influence from the culture they're born into. Does it absolve men from trying to help if it's just a nature thing?

 

As an aside, it's also a bit funny that nobody ever mentions the workplace-death gender gap, which is about 20:1 male to female workplace deaths. Do you think this is culturally motivated? Do you think males are biologically predisposed to be willing to do more dangerous work? The latter is certainly demonstrable, with testosterone being positively correlated with risky behavior.

 

 

As an aside, this seems like a defense for why men should get better pay than women, because they take more risks and die at work more often.

 

Not really. No more than "male crowd" would be, at least. How would you rephrase the title to make it seem less divisive?

Off the top of my head, I'd say just replace "female crowd" with "women". If you were trying to discuss men in STEM, would you really call them "males"? And I know it's just an argument from incredulity, and fairly worthless because of that, but I can hardly believe you would ever refer to men in STEM as "the male crowd".

 

Obviously my wording was hyperbolic, so if that annoyed you I apologize.

The only thing I'm finding annoying is that I can't figure out why you're trying to validate your stance with so many bad arguments. You seem to want everyone to argue from the extremes so you can more easily make your points.

[CharonY]

Okay, in my experience in the UK physics at all levels is male dominated. This starts at high school and continues throughout all levels.

 

Mathematics is more like 50-50 in school, slightly more males as undergraduates at university, clearly more males at postgraduate level, postdocs even more male dominated, a few female lectures and virtually no female professors.

 

The reasons for this, I think are mostly biological rather than cultural. That said, the two cannot be completely separated. Society will to some extent reflect our biological evolution, but we can recognise this and remove all barriers, both real and perceived stopping women going into STEM careers. However, I am not sure we should actively go past that point and somehow artificially ensure we have male-female balance. In fact, I would say a similar thing for any under represented demographic.

 

On the other hand, males make up around 10% of the nursing workforce in the UK and USA (according to Wikipedia). Should we do more to break down barriers stopping men becoming nurses? If so why? And shouldn't they ware the same uniforms? (I joke with the last one)

 

I think we are in agreement that we should remove or minimize gender bias. and yest, that also applies to nursing. To be honest, I am slightly less concerned at this point about gender differentials when entering and educational path, but rather about the difference in success. As noted in almost all disciplines (not only mathematics) the amount of women is reduced at each step. Again, there will be many issues at work here, but some of them could be alleviated by providing childcare (again, successful couples often take turns in looking after the children; otherwise the onus tends to be on the woman).

 

The real worrying bit to me is if the imbalance is interpreted as a biological difference in terms of academic ability, which is then used to limit someone's career. Especially considering that many female academics delay having children or forego childbearing altogether in fear of losing their career.

 

I should also add that because of that perspective I may have been conflating issues to some degree, though I do see them connected. I.e. lack of female seniority may discourage or reinforce gender stereotypes in academic disciplines. That in turn may discourage exploring ones interest in that area. And actually in the faculty of nursing, the low number of male candidates is also a concern.

 

Again, less from the reason that there should be parity, but more that potential (and imaginary) limitations due to cultural, stereotypical or other biases should be minimized.

Edited January 23, 2015 by CharonY

[iNow]

As noted in almost all disciplines (not only mathematics) the amount of women is reduced at each step.

This phenomenon is known as the Leaky Pipeline and is very well supported by evidence.

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540250500145072

 

 

[CharonY]

I have not seen that paper before. Thanks!

[elfmotat]

Suddenly, I have an assumed lack of respect for women's agency, because I think many societies don't treat women equally in the workplace? This argument reminds me of the "if you don't support the war, you must hate our soldiers" fallacy.

 

Women decide for themselves (at least in modern western countries) what careers they go into. Obviously you must think they choose wrong en masse, resulting in the STEM gap.

 

What, exactly, is incorrect about the above? Do you agree that women decide on their careers for themselves (usually, at least)? Do you disagree with those choices at a systemic level? Do you think you know better? Do you agree that that sounds a bit disrespectful?

 

You attempt to put down any kind of brainwashing as absurd. Personally, I consider the daily barrage of advertising many people get to be a form of brainwashing. In that context, women are very definitely being subjected to daily abuse. But you seem to be saying that because we're adults and can make our own decisions, that type of manipulation is perfectly OK, that's it's insulting to even suggest that it's an influence on women's career choices. I think many people ignore small, daily, accumulated brainwashings like this, in much the same way the frog doesn't jump out of the pot if the heat is increased slowly over time.

 

Do you have any studies (or anything else) which demonstrate a clear link between advertisements and career choice? This reminds me of the "video games will make you violent" argument that lasted for a decade or so before the assertion was conclusively put to rest. I don't think you're giving humans enough credit.

 

You need to stop looking at this as an all or nothing problem. It's not just culture that creates this gap, NOBODY has been saying that! It's much more likely that there are many factors to be considered.

 

I never said it was an all or nothing problem, nor did I ever imply it. I was careful to phrase my reply as a question -- as in "do/don't you agree with this(?)". If you go back and read my posts I was careful to say biology plays at least some role. I never said it was all biology, and I never said culture plays no role.

 

You seem to need women to be hard-wired against science biologically, with no influence from the culture they're born into.

 

I'll ask that you don't attempt to psychoanalyze what I 'need.' It puts me in the uncomfortable position of having to defend my own feelings, which you have now portrayed as possibly deranged.

 

Does it absolve men from trying to help if it's just a nature thing?

 

If the gap is the result of human beings making life decisions, what is there to help? Do you want to somehow socially engineer all careers so that the demographics are 50-50? Why? Wouldn't that just shift lots of men and women into fields they don't really want to be in? That's the opposite of helping.

 

In free societies where people are free to choose their own careers, gender gaps inevitably form. This is a demonstrable fact, and I don't find it to be a "bad" or "wrong" phenomenon. Just like I realize men will continue to die at ~20x the rate of women at work, commit suicide at ~5x the rate of women, and the prison population will probably always be ~90% male. Equal opportunity does not always result in equal outcome.

 

As an aside, this seems like a defense for why men should get better pay than women, because they take more risks and die at work more often.

 

That's pretty perpendicular to the point I was making (my aside was still driving the same point), but I would agree that people who take risks for their job should be compensated.

 

Off the top of my head, I'd say just replace "female crowd" with "women". If you were trying to discuss men in STEM, would you really call them "males"? And I know it's just an argument from incredulity, and fairly worthless because of that, but I can hardly believe you would ever refer to men in STEM as "the male crowd".

 

Well, I'd personally never refer to any group of people as "the X crowd." Not because it's disrespectful, but because that combination of words is not really in my vocabulary. I'd also personally not find it particularly offensive if thread's title was, for example, "why is the male crowd not attracted to nursing(?)".

Edited January 23, 2015 by elfmotat

[iNow]

Women decide for themselves (at least in modern western countries) what careers they go into.

Apparently you think that hiring managers and recruiters play no role in this process. Fascinating.

 

Obviously you must think they choose wrong en masse, resulting in the STEM gap.

Hey, there's our friend Mr.Strawman again. He really is becoming a regular around these parts. Perhaps we should reserve him a seat.

[elfmotat]

Apparently you think that hiring managers and recruiters play no role in this process. Fascinating.

Do hiring managers also choose your college major for you? The same gap is reflected there.

 

Hey, there's our friend Mr.Strawman again. He really is becoming a regular around these parts. Perhaps we should reserve him a seat.

You disingenuously removed the next part, where I asked Phi to explain what is wrong with my reasoning. It's now considered a strawman to ask what is erroneous about an argument?

[Phi for All]

Women decide for themselves (at least in modern western countries) what careers they go into. Obviously you must think they choose wrong en masse, resulting in the STEM gap.

I must think that? Is that a prerequisite for thinking that our cultures have more of an effect on women's career choice than any kind of biological preference? Where did my right/wrong judgment happen, in your opinion?

 

What, exactly, is incorrect about the above? Do you agree that women decide on their careers for themselves (usually, at least)? Do you disagree with those choices at a systemic level? Do you think you know better? Do you agree that that sounds a bit disrespectful?

 

You put forth the argument that I'm insulting the agency of women by claiming they're affected by attempts to dissuade them from certain career choices. If I were to make similar claims of unjust manipulation about people being affected by internet harassment, would you assume I'm trying to insult them? I don't see where the insult is, and I can't help but feel this part of your argument is trying to say, "They're big girls, they can take care of themselves, you're insulting them to think they could be swayed in their career choice by their society."

 

Do you have any studies (or anything else) which demonstrate a clear link between advertisements and career choice? This reminds me of the "video games will make you violent" argument that lasted for a decade or so before the assertion was conclusively put to rest. I don't think you're giving humans enough credit.

No, the advertising part was analogy, trying to equate the subtle, constant aspects of both advertising and societal pressures. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

 

I'll ask that you don't attempt to psychoanalyze what I 'need.' It puts me in the uncomfortable position of having to defend my own feelings, which you have now portrayed as possibly deranged.

Again, I've been unclear. This was not personal. It's your argument I was talking about, that it seems to need women to be biologically disposed to certain professions, or at least much more so than they're affected by their societies.

 

 

If the gap is the result of human beings making life decisions, what is there to help? Do you want to somehow socially engineer all careers so that the demographics are 50-50? Why? Wouldn't that just shift lots of men and women into fields they don't really want to be in? That's the opposite of helping.

 

It seemed to help minorities when we agreed not to treat them differently with respect to employment and housing. Many people now have a broader range of freedom to make life decisions because they can factor a mandatory lack of prejudice into the equation. I offer this as evidence that it might work with women in STEM.

 

That's pretty perpendicular to the point I was making (my aside was still driving the same point), but I would agree that people who take risks for their job should be compensated.

 

But are you also saying that men should be compensated more on average because more men die on average while working? Is this the risk you're talking about, besides the obvious stuff like "skyscraper construction worker"?

 

Well, I'd personally never refer to any group of people as "the X crowd." Not because it's disrespectful, but because that combination of words is not really in my vocabulary. I'd personally not find it particularly offensive if thread's title was, for example, "why is the male crowd not attracted to nursing(?)".

Please forgive me, you've been participating so much I'd forgotten that Unity+ opened and titled the thread.

[elfmotat]

I must think that? Is that a prerequisite for thinking that our cultures have more of an effect on women's career choice than any kind of biological preference? Where did my right/wrong judgment happen, in your opinion?

 

I was under the impression that you saw the gap as a problem to be fixed. "Right" or "wrong" choices being those that do/don't close the gap.

 

You put forth the argument that I'm insulting the agency of women by claiming they're affected by attempts to dissuade them from certain career choices.

 

It implies they're too weak to think and decide for themselves. Maybe you're right, societal influences play a particularly massive factor. I just don't think we're that easily programmable, especially when it comes to important life decisions.

 

Do you have any evidence of systemic attempts to dissuade women from entering STEM?

 

If I were to make similar claims of unjust manipulation about people being affected by internet harassment, would you assume I'm trying to insult them?

 

That's a bad analogy. Getting bad feelings from being harassed is not the same as letting societal pressures control your life decisions. The former can't be helped, as it is not their choice to be harassed. The latter can be helped -- it is entirely within their control.

 

"They're big girls, they can take care of themselves, you're insulting them to think they could be swayed in their career choice by their society."

 

Swayed? Sure. So magnificently manipulated by the international community that huge cross-cultural gender gaps emerge and stabilize? Seems unlikely.

 

No, the advertising part was analogy, trying to equate the subtle, constant aspects of both advertising and societal pressures. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

 

Okay. I'm still not convinced by this though. How would you even test the "subtle societal pressures plays large role in career choice" hypothesis?

 

Again, I've been unclear. This was not personal. It's your argument I was talking about, that it seems to need women to be biologically disposed to certain professions, or at least much more so than they're affected by their societies.

 

It is a fact that males and females are biologically predisposed to have at least somewhat different interests (see post #2). It is my opinion that this accounts for different career choices. It is my opinion that this probably plays a larger role in the STEM gender gap than culture, given that it is a stable cross-cultural phenomenon. My arguments are tailored to reflect those opinions.

 

It seemed to help minorities when we agreed not to treat them differently with respect to employment and housing. Many people now have a broader range of freedom to make life decisions because they can factor a mandatory lack of prejudice into the equation. I offer this as evidence that it might work with women in STEM.

 

What careers, in the developed world, are still restricted to men? What field could I get a job in as a man but not as a woman? We've had equal opportunity laws for decades. I see absolutely zero evidence for systematic discrimination of this kind.

 

But are you also saying that men should be compensated more on average because more men die on average while working? Is this the risk you're talking about, besides the obvious stuff like "skyscraper construction worker"?

 

No. For example, Alaskan crab fishermen should be paid more than a common carp fisherman. Hazard pay. That men are more likely to take these types of dangerous jobs is irrelevant to whether they should pay more.

[iNow]

Maybe you're right, societal influences play a particularly massive factor. I just don't think we're that easily programmable, especially when it comes to important life decisions.

Not a student of human nature, are you?

 

Do you have any evidence of systemic attempts to dissuade women from entering STEM?

They're not always or even often explicit in the way you seem to demand. Far more frequently it's subtle and insidious... a collection of slight cues and feedback mechanisms that when viewed in aggregate very easily explain the issues at play. Many of these have already been shared and evidenced in this very thread.

 

Swayed? Sure. So magnificently manipulated by the international community that huge cross-cultural gender gaps emerge and stabilize? Seems unlikely.

Sorry, but much more unlikely is your suggestion that sufficient genetic differences exist between females and males to explain the gaps under discussion. Your incredulity is not a valid argument against the social aspect.

 

How would you even test the "subtle societal pressures plays large role in career choice" hypothesis?

Are you not bothering to read the citations people are sharing with you? That's the only explanation I can see for your continuing to ask such questions. See post #65 as a start.

 

It is a fact that males and females are biologically predisposed to have at least somewhat different interests (see post #2). It is my opinion that this accounts for different career choices.

And you're welcome to your opinion, but valid rebuttals have been offered, as have far more parsimonious explanations. Again, you don't strike me as a student of human nature, or even basic psychology given this stance. You also seem to use personal incredulity and strawmen a lot. That's not generally a good sign of a quality argument.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Elfmotat, it is quite possible that biological differences play some role in which career or major a person chooses. However, to deny - as you seem to be - the effect of cultural influences on these choices because you think it absurd that a woman should be so weak as to not be able to make her own choices...well, perhaps you should go ahead and check your privilege. Social / cultural influences are an intrinsic, well-conditioned part of our reality and we make choices dictated by these influences every single day without even thinking about them. They don't have to be overt or make themselves very obvious to have a huge effect.

 

I mentioned an episode of the Freakonomics podcast before. If you have the time, I really would encourage you to listen to it. It does a great job of looking at some of these things and I found it very interesting. http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/24/women-are-not-men-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

 

I particularly enjoyed this study, which looks at how likely a woman is to take a risk in patriarchal vs matrilineal societies:

http://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/gender-differences-competition.pdf

[MigL]

Having just read this entire thread from the beginning I think you guys are misinterpreting elfmotat's views.

He can probably make his case better than I can for him, but what I got out of it is that he's of the opinion that there are several causes for the imbalance. One is societal pressures, another is hard-wired biology, and there are more.

On the other hand iNow originally argued that there is no significant biological difference.

 

That seems to me to be the crux of the argument, whether biological difference play a significant part in education and career choices. I for one, would think that the 'significant biological difference' part can be easily verified by looking at yourself and your heterosexual ( obviously ) partner in a mirror while in a state of undress.

 

That being said, I'll also refer to the other thread mentioned earlier. Why is a gender imbalance a bad thing ? As has been mentioned by elfmotat there are other imbalances, some much more serious. The gender imbalance, by itself it is not a bad thing

 

However, SOME of the causes of this imbalance ( like discrimination, and societal pressure ) can be.

Some others ( like biological differences ) are actually quite nice

 

A bit off topic, but it seems to be happening more and more, especially in this thread.

The use of 'logical fallacy', 'red herring', 'strawman argument' and others, is being used to avoid doing the work of providing a counter-argument. Because someone thinks an argument is not pertinent to a discussion, doesn't mean that it actually isn't. He should still demonstrate where it isn't and where the logic fails. Especially in the case where we're dealing predominately with opinions. Otherwise it is being used solely as a 'tool' to shut down discussion.

[iNow]

On the other hand iNow originally argued that there is no significant biological difference.

Biological differences? Yes, of course those exist. Differences significant enough to explain this very specific asymmetry in this super narrow single aspect of modern human culture and vocation? No, that screams of someone looking to merely confirm a preconception and ideological gender bias, especially given the robust existing literature available and consistent over decades on this actual topic. What's significant is how easily people can convince themselves to ignore that literature in favor of their own largely uninformed personal opinions.

 

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623121000.htm

Edited January 24, 2015 by iNow