3 ms·

Wow, this has got to be the mother of all strawman arguments in this thread (and there have been many) ! Nobody said anything about discouraging or discriminat

Wow, this has got to be the mother of all strawman arguments in this thread (and there have been many) ! Nobody said anything about discouraging or discriminating the many women who are interested in STEM fields. In fact, if anybody seems slightly obsessed with using discrimination to twist reality's arm into matching some "magical speculated" EQUALITY_RATIO (0.5), it's your side of the debate. And that's the whole premise the memo wanted to question. I strongly believe and care greatly that any individual interested in a field of work should feel welcome to enter it regardless of gender, race, age or other personal factors unrelated to their ability. I have personally always tried my best to remove any specific hurdles my minority colleagues might encounter, and I will support anything that helps in this respect. But no more than that : make people welcome, but stop short of forcing them in or blaming the system if they don't come. This is where some diversity programs go IMHO too far by trying to fix what ain't broken, if their aim is social justice (the best defence for them is actually a business argument : greater diversity does make for better functioning teams, so it might be worth artificially forcing it) The dogma that needs to be questioned (not least because the scientific evidence against it is overwhelming) is the idea that the gender imbalance in STEM fields (and in nursing/care/humanities) is more likely the undesirable outcome of sexism, discrimination and hostile environments, rather than the desirable result of free choices made by liberated western women following their hearts. Obviously, if it turns out to be the latter, it follows that the whole fight for parity at all costs (the "magical speculated number" of 0.5) looks like a rather moot and quixotic endeavour. How about just letting people be whatever they want to be ? Occam's razor is again helpful here : on one side we have a very straightforward biology/hormonal influence-based theory supported by evidence. On the other hand we have something much more complex, bordering on conspiracy theory : "the patriarchy". While I agree that further replicated studies are probably required on both sides, as things stands I'm pretty confident which one is the more likely explanation that scientifically-minded people should reasonably lean towards.

dguaraglia 9y ago
> The dogma that needs to be questioned (not least because the scientific evidence against it is overwhelming) is the idea that the gender imbalance in STEM fields (and in nursing/care/humanities) is more likely the undesirable outcome of sexism, discrimination and hostile environments, rather than the desirable result of free choices made by liberated western women following their hearts The dogma that needs to be questioned is the idea that, in a society where women were only given the vote in the last 100 years, were still relegated to the kitchen until after WWII and - to this day - are considered second-class citizens who can't determine what to do with their own bodies, we should be talking about them being in a "position of equality." > How about just letting people be whatever they want to be ? Is anyone forcing women to become engineers? I wasn't aware of that. Maybe you just have a pre-conception of what women "should do" and seeing them in your field strikes you as "someone must have forced them"? > on one side we have a very straightforward biology/hormonal influence-based theory supported by evidence. On the other hand we have something much more complex, bordering on conspiracy theory : "the patriarchy" No. Stop trying to make this some conspiracy theory. The "evidence" you are presenting as to why women behave one way is just a step above phrenology, which was wildly popular in the early 1900s and proven to be completely bogus since. You can't discount societal context when talking about behavior. Why do Norwegian and Swedish women behave differently than American women, if biology should explain everything?

dguaraglia 9y ago

> The dogma that needs to be questioned (not least because the scientific evidence against it is overwhelming) is the idea that the gender imbalance in STEM fields (and in nursing/care/humanities) is more likely the undesirable outcome of sexism, discrimination and hostile environments, rather than the desirable result of free choices made by liberated western women following their hearts The dogma that needs to be questioned is the idea that, in a society where women were only given the vote in the last 100 years, were still relegated to the kitchen until after WWII and - to this day - are considered second-class citizens who can't determine what to do with their own bodies, we should be talking about them being in a "position of equality." > How about just letting people be whatever they want to be ? Is anyone forcing women to become engineers? I wasn't aware of that. Maybe you just have a pre-conception of what women "should do" and seeing them in your field strikes you as "someone must have forced them"? > on one side we have a very straightforward biology/hormonal influence-based theory supported by evidence. On the other hand we have something much more complex, bordering on conspiracy theory : "the patriarchy" No. Stop trying to make this some conspiracy theory. The "evidence" you are presenting as to why women behave one way is just a step above phrenology, which was wildly popular in the early 1900s and proven to be completely bogus since. You can't discount societal context when talking about behavior. Why do Norwegian and Swedish women behave differently than American women, if biology should explain everything?