|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 23 2016 19:58 kwizach wrote:
We are talking about candidates to hold political office, not physicists, and there are plenty of equally qualified female candidates to choose from. None of what I said is nonsense. If you truly believe there aren't enough qualified women in Italy to hold the kind of elected positions SoSexy is referring to, I suggest you look into the topic further.
With regards to your points on physicists, the "choice" you refer to is, at the structural level, largely conditioned by cultural factors, in particular gender stereotypes and how they influence what we expect of women and men in society as well as how we educate and bring them up.
As i said, that question is not easy to answer, in fact a lot of people are currently trying to figure out why women choose to not study physics as much. It is very easy to just say "Yeah it's the evil patriarchic society". Actually proving that in a scientific way is hard, and then taking a look at figuring out exactly which factors of their upbringing makes them choose not to study such subjects is even harder.
What i meant with "choice" is simply that there is not a big evil conspiracy denying females the access to studying physics. If you have an abitur, you can immatriculate to study physics at a university in germany. There are no entry exams and there is no decision being made regarding which applicants get the places, as there are more places than applicants. So the reason that there are less females in a physics lecture is that they choose to study something else.
And it is a free choice, not a "choice", unless you wish to declare that grown-up women do not make any choice of their own, they simply do what they are conditioned to do by society like robots.
The reason i am talking about physics and education is because those are things i have first-hand experience with.
|
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not -- the kind of "free choice" you refer to does not happen in a vacuum, because your own development did not happen in a vacuum. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men.
|
On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men.
I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women.
Anyway, that's a secondary problem. No one argue for more workers/blue collars in the senate, while it's the most underrepresented group, more than black, or women.
|
On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women.
I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups).
|
On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups).
I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality.
In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is.
Meanwhile, nobody cares that poor people are underrepresented. Trump and Hillary all belong to the same social class.
|
That would require Trump understanding the geopolitical situation in the South China Sea (beyond that "we're losing" and similar vagaries) and knows we have a ban on sales of arms to Vietnam. Considering he thought TPP involved China I suspect neither of those things are true.
He might say something along the lines of "we should just make everyone pay us to police the South China Sea" though, which this is quite quite far from.
Also if you actually read what's happening it doesn't seem anywhere near comparable to the issues the media seized on with Trump (which was predominantly NATO and overall just bizarre discussions of U.S. diplomatic ties).
|
On May 23 2016 21:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups). I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality. In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is. Meanwhile, nobody cares that poor people are underrepresented. Trump and Hillary all belong to the same social class.
How much time must pass in order for a particular dynamic to be regarded as "how it is?" Furthermore, couldn't your suggestion that women still don't go into STEM fields be just as easily chalked up as an indictment of how we attempt to bridge the sex gap? In other words, who's to say that our chosen methods for attracting women into STEM are not just another part of the same problem?
As an aside, I personally think it's rather clear that the humanities are where our attention ought be paid anyhow 
|
On May 23 2016 21:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups). I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality. In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is.
There is no reason for the empirical data to display a sizeable change if the conditions for that change have not sufficiently been met, and if the time period necessary for that change to occur has not passed.
edit: actually, in the US, in several STEM fields women have steadily occupied a higher share of the workforce over the last few decades (although their proportion in computer occupations have stagnated and over some periods move backwards -- which can again be explained by gender stereotypes, however). See this report by Christianne Corbet and Catherine Hill for the American Association of University Women (p. 9).
|
On May 23 2016 21:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 21:14 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups). I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality. In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is. Meanwhile, nobody cares that poor people are underrepresented. Trump and Hillary all belong to the same social class. How much time must pass in order for a particular dynamic to be regarded as "how it is?" Furthermore, couldn't your suggestion that women still don't go into STEM fields be just as easily chalked up as an indictment of how we attempt to bridge the sex gap? In other words, who's to say that our chosen methods for attracting women into STEM are not just another part of the same problem? As an aside, I personally think it's rather clear that the humanities are where our attention ought be paid anyhow
A generation should be enough to see the effect of a policy on education I guess (25 years more or less).
You might be right, this is nothing but an irrefutable interpretation tho.
On May 23 2016 21:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 21:14 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups). I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality. In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is. There is no reason for the empirical data to display a sizeable change if the conditions for that change have not sufficiently been met, and if the time period necessary for that change to occur has not passed.
Maybe, but the change is seen in many other kind of field : for exemple, in most developped countries, the voting gender gap basically disappeared.
Aside from that, what does the collective gets from having more women in politics ? Did it change anything ?
edit: actually, in the US, in several STEM fields women have steadily occupied a higher share of the workforce over the last few decades (although their proportion in computer occupations have stagnated and over some periods move backwards -- which can again be explained by gender stereotypes, however). See this report by Christianne Corbet and Catherine Hill for the American Association of University Women (p. 9).
Wow the % of women in stem in the US is very low.
|
On May 23 2016 21:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 21:31 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 21:14 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups). I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality. In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is. There is no reason for the empirical data to display a sizeable change if the conditions for that change have not sufficiently been met, and if the time period necessary for that change to occur has not passed. Maybe, but the change is seen in many other kind of field : for exemple, in most developped countries, the voting gender gap basically disappeared.
That's a very different object of study, and different norms are at play.
On May 23 2016 21:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Aside from that, what does the collective gets from having more women in politics ? Did it change anything ?
There's an entire body of literature on the subject. The short answer with respect to policy is: yes, most notably with regards to policies impacting specifically women, children and families. Having women in leadership positions also helps negate restrictive gender stereotypes about the roles of women in society. I'm guessing it also helps with how the legitimacy of the political authority is perceived among women.
On May 23 2016 21:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +edit: actually, in the US, in several STEM fields women have steadily occupied a higher share of the workforce over the last few decades (although their proportion in computer occupations have stagnated and over some periods move backwards -- which can again be explained by gender stereotypes, however). See this report by Christianne Corbet and Catherine Hill for the American Association of University Women (p. 9). Wow the % of women in stem in the US is very low.
What matters is how it has changed over time. And it appears to have been growing in several fields over the last few decades.
|
There's an entire body of literature on the subject. The short answer with respect to policy is: yes, most notably with regards to policies impacting specifically women, children and families. Having women in leadership positions also helps negate restrictive gender stereotypes about the roles of women in society.
There's bullshit litterature on many subjects.
You're telling me the core arguments for women in politics are contradictory : they negate "restrictive" (whatever that mean) gender stereotypes, but mainly play a role in what is traditionally considered to be women subjects (familly, children). A rich woman is rich before all, and it is this reality that define her political stances.
Gender or race diversity is used as some kind of way to legitimate our ploutocratic democracy and the election of specific individuals that are, more often than not, originating from rich families. Hence the reason why the left and the right both love diversity.
That's a very different object of study, and different norms are at play.
And yet it's the same theorical argument.
What matters is how it has changed over time. And it appears to have been growing in several fields over the last few decades.
If it is abnormally low, and increase but still stays below the norm, it can be argued that its a specificity of the US more than anything. In France, women in stem related courses account for at least 20 % of student in 2000, up to 40 %, with 25 % on average and we're not particularly advanced.
|
On May 23 2016 21:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:That would require Trump understanding the geopolitical situation in the South China Sea (beyond that "we're losing" and similar vagaries) and knows we have a ban on sales of arms to Vietnam. Considering he thought TPP involved China I suspect neither of those things are true. He might say something along the lines of "we should just make everyone pay us to police the South China Sea" though, which this is quite quite far from. Also if you actually read what's happening it doesn't seem anywhere near comparable to the issues the media seized on with Trump (which was predominantly NATO and overall just bizarre discussions of U.S. diplomatic ties).
jk we dont have a ban on arm sales anymore
|
On May 23 2016 21:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 21:29 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2016 21:14 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups). I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality. In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is. Meanwhile, nobody cares that poor people are underrepresented. Trump and Hillary all belong to the same social class. How much time must pass in order for a particular dynamic to be regarded as "how it is?" Furthermore, couldn't your suggestion that women still don't go into STEM fields be just as easily chalked up as an indictment of how we attempt to bridge the sex gap? In other words, who's to say that our chosen methods for attracting women into STEM are not just another part of the same problem? As an aside, I personally think it's rather clear that the humanities are where our attention ought be paid anyhow A generation should be enough to see the effect of a policy on education I guess (25 years more or less). You might be right, this is nothing but an irrefutable interpretation tho. Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 21:31 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 21:14 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 21:11 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2016 20:44 WhiteDog wrote:On May 23 2016 20:37 kwizach wrote:
Nobody is saying "yeah it's the evil patriarchic society", or that there's a "big evil conspiracy" denying females the possibility of studying phyics. What plenty of scientists who have studied the effects of gender norms have shown, however, is that cultural factors play an enormous role in determining structurally some of the paths women (and men) tend to choose in life. Being conditioned is not the same as being a robot -- you're "conditioned" to behave in plenty of specific ways because of countless norms you've integrated throughout your life. This applies to choices you make in life as well, for examples in terms of how you perceive different paths to be appropriate for you or not. Understanding that we live in societies in which different gender norms are still very prevalent with regards to scientific work, role models, behavior in school, past-times, etc., is fundamental if your goal is to understand why fewer women pursue STEM studies than men. I agree with you entirely from a theorical standpoint, the problem is that in societies that are more keen to give equal treatment to young men and women, we don't see more women going to stem studies. Empirically speaking, the theory seems rather weak to completly understand the differences in the actual behavior men and women. I disagree that we have reached an empirical situation that has evolved sufficiently with regards to the norms surrounding STEM fields specifically, to be expecting large-scale changes to have happened already (especially considering we need to wait for the kids to have become grown-ups). I disagree with empiric datas is what I read. Weber called it the naturalist prejudgement, mistaking theory for reality. In countries that basically do everything they can to attract women to STEM fields, such as northern european countries, we don't see more women (sometime we actually see less women...), that's just how it is. There's more to the difference between men and women than socialisation/gender differences in reality, that's just how it is. There is no reason for the empirical data to display a sizeable change if the conditions for that change have not sufficiently been met, and if the time period necessary for that change to occur has not passed. Maybe, but the change is seen in many other kind of field : for exemple, in most developped countries, the voting gender gap basically disappeared. Aside from that, what does the collective gets from having more women in politics ? Did it change anything ? Show nested quote +edit: actually, in the US, in several STEM fields women have steadily occupied a higher share of the workforce over the last few decades (although their proportion in computer occupations have stagnated and over some periods move backwards -- which can again be explained by gender stereotypes, however). See this report by Christianne Corbet and Catherine Hill for the American Association of University Women (p. 9). Wow the % of women in stem in the US is very low.
The US’s problem with the lack of women in STEM fields is best looked at regionally, rather than nationally. Some fields and areas of the US are doing better than others. Since the US is so large, the problems for women in New England getting into engineering might not be the same as those diving in to computer science in Silicon Valley. Plus it avoids the vague talking points so prevalent in these discussion and bores down to the specific fields and their issues.
But I do agree that it is very low and there are likely a ton of smart women that could be in the field, but avoid it for a number of reasons.
|
To think any country has fixed its gender bias problems in both the professional and personal field is absolutely ludicrous. I personally know many STEM women who quit the field just because of the men they were taking classes with, or the teachers they were taking classes with. When they're attacked constantly with allies in sight of course the attendance remains low. Its not enough for laws to enforce equality--but so many people have not learned to LIVE in a gender equal way and so many people (men and women included) perpetuate and instill these gender norms on young women so much its no surprise they get led astray.
There are ZERO countries even remotely close to not being highly misogynistic. For the most part, the best western countries can say is "at least we don't kill/mutilate women" as their best examples for progress.
|
On May 23 2016 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
To think any country has fixed its gender bias problems in both the professional and personal field is absolutely ludicrous. I personally know many STEM women who quit the field just because of the men they were taking classes with, or the teachers they were taking classes with. When they're attacked constantly with allies in sight of course the attendance remains low. Its not enough for laws to enforce equality--but so many people have not learned to LIVE in a gender equal way and so many people (men and women included) perpetuate and instill these gender norms on young women so much its no surprise they get led astray.
There are ZERO countries even remotely close to not being highly misogynistic. For the most part, the best western countries can say is "at least we don't kill/mutilate women" as their best examples for progress.
Scandinavia is actually quite impressive, although sometimes in a somewhat dysfunctional way. But people are extremely aware of the issue and their is a broad consensus (especially in Sweden) to tackle the problem.
As a matter of fact in most circles, making a sexist remark in Sweden is the one single most inappropriate thing you can do just after murdering everyone in sight.
It also leads to sometimes catastrophic positive discrimination; as a symphonic musician, I have countless scandinavian experiences of disastrous female conductor who just couldn't do their job and has absolutely nothing to do on the podium..
|
One thing I think will be interesting in the coming years is coming to terms with physiological differences in men and women and how these differences can likely translate into cognitive differences as well. We're all on board with the physiological differences between men and women being honest, but as soon as anything cognitive is brought up, the whole thing shuts down. It's as if the human brain isn't physical and people want to believe brains would somehow be resistant to physiological variation.
|
The argument that people will be given jobs due to their gender is always brought up. But having worked in the private sector for a long time, people getting jobs that they are not qualified for is already happening. Companies making efforts to increase their intake of resumes from women isn’t going change that problem.
On May 23 2016 23:39 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I think will be interesting in the coming years is coming to terms with physiological differences in men and women and how these differences can likely translate into cognitive differences as well. We're all on board with the physiological differences between men and women being honest, but as soon as anything cognitive is brought up, the whole thing shuts down. It's as if the human brain isn't physical and people want to believe brains would somehow be resistant to physiological variation.
The main reason that discussion gets shut down is it is often used to justify a current system that benefits men. It’s the classic “boys are good at math, girls are good at English” argument that was proven to be a dubious claim at the very best.
|
On May 23 2016 23:43 Plansix wrote:
The argument that people will be given jobs due to their gender is always brought up. But having worked in the private sector for a long time, people getting jobs that they are not qualified for is already happening. Companies making efforts to increase their intake of resumes from women isn’t going change that problem.
It doesn't create a new problem per se, but it does allow for another mechanism through which the problem happens.
|
On May 23 2016 23:39 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing I think will be interesting in the coming years is coming to terms with physiological differences in men and women and how these differences can likely translate into cognitive differences as well. We're all on board with the physiological differences between men and women being honest, but as soon as anything cognitive is brought up, the whole thing shuts down. It's as if the human brain isn't physical and people want to believe brains would somehow be resistant to physiological variation.
This has been studied actually. The real quality of our brain is its plasticity ; mankind is the animal that has the longest enfancy, this permits us to adapt more to our environment, and learn more. At birth there seem to be no differences between a man and a woman's brain. After twenty years, there are many differences between most people, not only between men and women.
|
On May 23 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2016 23:43 Plansix wrote:
The argument that people will be given jobs due to their gender is always brought up. But having worked in the private sector for a long time, people getting jobs that they are not qualified for is already happening. Companies making efforts to increase their intake of resumes from women isn’t going change that problem. It doesn't create a new problem per se, but it does allow for another mechanism through which the problem happens.
So does everything else in the world. Self driving cars could have problems. GMOs could create problems. Trying to cure all diseases could have weird side effects on how we live. This is not a compelling argument on its face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
