5 ms·

I've made the point more times than I care to mention, put simply there are two ways to think about the problem. The first is that men are dominating STEM field

by bArray 9y ago

I've made the point more times than I care to mention, put simply there are two ways to think about the problem. The first is that men are dominating STEM fields. The second is that women are dominating non-STEM fields. IMO, the latter is mostly true. Less males are attending Western Universities than females, yet there is absolutely no push what-so-ever to fix this. Nobody cares about the lack of men in subjects such as Art or English Literature and certainly no initiative exists to even begin to correct this. Nobody is trying to push women into the lower 5% of jobs. Brick layers, plumbers, electricians - all well paying jobs - where is the push to get women into those? There are fundamental differences in the sexes which favour men for some jobs. For example, millions of years of evolution means that when you take a random pack of dogs, a group of apes or a gathering of humans and allow them to discover natural social order - almost always the leader will be male. Whether we want to accept it or not, we are still just highly functioning animals. Probably the most concerning, despicable, disgusting act of them all is a "recognition of women in... award" (rarely recognition of men of course), or the manipulation of wages to equal the "pay gap", or biasing employment, etc. To me, it says "we know women can't compete, therefore we're biasing the end result to make the outcome equal". It's like first-wave feminism meant nothing, what was the fight for equal opportunity even about if you only go on to bias towards equal outcome anyway? The point: Equal opportunity > Equal outcome

naasking 9y ago
> Nobody is trying to push women into the lower 5% of jobs. Brick layers, plumbers, electricians - all well paying jobs - where is the push to get women into those? Because these jobs don't address the power imbalance between men and women in our society. Lawyers and doctors are highly respected careers that influence the direction of society. Lots of women pushed into this field. Politics also needs more women, as should be obvious given how much states and Congress tries to control women's health care options. Computer science is increasingly pervading every facet of our existence, and so having gender parity ensures female concerns are equally represented as this field evolves.
- bArray 9y ago
  >Because these jobs don't address the power imbalance between men and women in our society. The "power imbalance" should be represented in all areas, surely? You can't just have the icing on the cake. And I think you've hit the nail on the head, this isn't about equality, this is about control, particularly money and power. >Lawyers and doctors are highly respected careers that influence the direction of society. And have begun to dominate these fields now (although I can't find a source of that I would be happy to quote). >Lots of women pushed into this field. I'm not sure there has been a significant struggle for a long time. >Politics also needs more women, as should be obvious given how much states and Congress tries to control women's health care options. I wouldn't say the main problem with Congress is that there is a lack of women, I think it's very existence is it's largest issue. >having gender parity ensures female concerns are equally represented as this field evolves "female concerns" sounds like a terribly generic term, you'll have to be more specific and explain how these concerns override the need for women representation (not necessarily women by the way, just a person who fairly represents them) in politics. My thinking is that tech for the most part is completely genderless, it's simply the application of Science. Most control is tech can be or has been completely overridden by law. But in general, I think (without being rude and wanting a genuine reply) that you've missed my point with regards to the lower 5% of jobs. My point is that instead of making STEM fields artificially more difficult to get into for men, another option is to make other fields more attractive. Social care for example is horrendously dominated by women, yet of massive importance to society - they are struggling to recruit due to social stigma, yet little is being done to address this.
tdb7893 9y ago
I'm a nerdy upper middle class white guy but I have a different view from some of the engineers, especially female, that I've met (many are aerospace and not software engineers). Engineering has a tendency to attract a certain type of male and people outside of that group have a much harder time fitting in with software engineers and also can be subject so some more subtly hostile behaviours. I'm not saying the field needs to be have perfect splits of demographics but engineering should be open to everyone who enjoys it and has the aptitude but in the experiences I've heard about it's more open to some people than others. I guess that's the disagreement I have with people is that it's hard for me to see engineering as open and meritocratic when I've seen situations where it definitely is not (even if those situations are just anecdotes)
- bArray 9y ago
  I agree the the environments should be open, but in the same way academia is, where putting ideas out there is fine but equally you should be prepared for them to be challenged. "Hostility" shouldn't be meaninglessly applied, but equally bad ideas shouldn't be encouraged. That said, the completely incorrect way of handling this is to bias the outcomes, a.k.a purposely hiring genders (or any group) to meet quotas, balancing pay checks despite job descriptions, etc. That just puts incentives for unhappy people to remain where they are, nobody wins that way.
belorn 9y ago
> discover natural social order - almost always the leader will be male. I would want to mention that the definition of leader don't perfectly match between alpha males in animals and human leaders. I recall this troop of baboons. As usually the alpha male leaders the group in the morning to the feeding ground, but a new male had recently joined and won the alpha spot and he didn't know where it was. The flock followed for a while, but at a point the older female baboons simply decided to break to the right place and the rest of the flock followed. The alpha continued walking forward, oblivious that the flock behind him had gone elsewhere and was quite surprised when he finally noticed that the flock was gone. There were no punishment for the older female baboons. No fight when they stopped following the alpha. The alpha is permitted to lead, but only to a point.
- bArray 9y ago
  >I would want to mention that the definition of leader don't perfectly match between alpha males in animals and human leaders. Of course not, but it's "perfect" enough to be evolutionary advantageous. >There were no punishment for the older female baboons. No fight when they stopped following the alpha. The alpha is permitted to lead, but only to a point. Of course in not all cases will the alpha be the best leader, I won't even remotely argue that. But I've seen time and time again, the best leaders are often the most bold. Sometimes it's simply not clear what decision should be made and instead of allowing that indecisiveness to spread throughout the group, a decision is quickly made for better or worse and it's confidently executed. Your better leaders will be able to make better decisions from incomplete data that maximize opportunity and reduce risk. There are a few takeaways from your anecdote: 1. Leader doesn't always know what leader is doing, but does it anyway. Sometimes looking the part is more important than being the part. 2. Better a heard of apes lost than a feeding ape alone - predators be watching. 3. Pull on the skills of a larger group - the old and wise female baboons for their apparent localization, the male baboons for fighting off a predator, the females for directly looking after the interests young, etc. The people fulfilling the roles may change, but the roles themselves remain.

by bArray 9y ago

naasking 9y ago

> Nobody is trying to push women into the lower 5% of jobs. Brick layers, plumbers, electricians - all well paying jobs - where is the push to get women into those? Because these jobs don't address the power imbalance between men and women in our society. Lawyers and doctors are highly respected careers that influence the direction of society. Lots of women pushed into this field. Politics also needs more women, as should be obvious given how much states and Congress tries to control women's health care options. Computer science is increasingly pervading every facet of our existence, and so having gender parity ensures female concerns are equally represented as this field evolves.

bArray 9y ago
>Because these jobs don't address the power imbalance between men and women in our society. The "power imbalance" should be represented in all areas, surely? You can't just have the icing on the cake. And I think you've hit the nail on the head, this isn't about equality, this is about control, particularly money and power. >Lawyers and doctors are highly respected careers that influence the direction of society. And have begun to dominate these fields now (although I can't find a source of that I would be happy to quote). >Lots of women pushed into this field. I'm not sure there has been a significant struggle for a long time. >Politics also needs more women, as should be obvious given how much states and Congress tries to control women's health care options. I wouldn't say the main problem with Congress is that there is a lack of women, I think it's very existence is it's largest issue. >having gender parity ensures female concerns are equally represented as this field evolves "female concerns" sounds like a terribly generic term, you'll have to be more specific and explain how these concerns override the need for women representation (not necessarily women by the way, just a person who fairly represents them) in politics. My thinking is that tech for the most part is completely genderless, it's simply the application of Science. Most control is tech can be or has been completely overridden by law. But in general, I think (without being rude and wanting a genuine reply) that you've missed my point with regards to the lower 5% of jobs. My point is that instead of making STEM fields artificially more difficult to get into for men, another option is to make other fields more attractive. Social care for example is horrendously dominated by women, yet of massive importance to society - they are struggling to recruit due to social stigma, yet little is being done to address this.

tdb7893 9y ago

I'm a nerdy upper middle class white guy but I have a different view from some of the engineers, especially female, that I've met (many are aerospace and not software engineers). Engineering has a tendency to attract a certain type of male and people outside of that group have a much harder time fitting in with software engineers and also can be subject so some more subtly hostile behaviours. I'm not saying the field needs to be have perfect splits of demographics but engineering should be open to everyone who enjoys it and has the aptitude but in the experiences I've heard about it's more open to some people than others. I guess that's the disagreement I have with people is that it's hard for me to see engineering as open and meritocratic when I've seen situations where it definitely is not (even if those situations are just anecdotes)

bArray 9y ago
I agree the the environments should be open, but in the same way academia is, where putting ideas out there is fine but equally you should be prepared for them to be challenged. "Hostility" shouldn't be meaninglessly applied, but equally bad ideas shouldn't be encouraged. That said, the completely incorrect way of handling this is to bias the outcomes, a.k.a purposely hiring genders (or any group) to meet quotas, balancing pay checks despite job descriptions, etc. That just puts incentives for unhappy people to remain where they are, nobody wins that way.

belorn 9y ago

> discover natural social order - almost always the leader will be male. I would want to mention that the definition of leader don't perfectly match between alpha males in animals and human leaders. I recall this troop of baboons. As usually the alpha male leaders the group in the morning to the feeding ground, but a new male had recently joined and won the alpha spot and he didn't know where it was. The flock followed for a while, but at a point the older female baboons simply decided to break to the right place and the rest of the flock followed. The alpha continued walking forward, oblivious that the flock behind him had gone elsewhere and was quite surprised when he finally noticed that the flock was gone. There were no punishment for the older female baboons. No fight when they stopped following the alpha. The alpha is permitted to lead, but only to a point.

bArray 9y ago
>I would want to mention that the definition of leader don't perfectly match between alpha males in animals and human leaders. Of course not, but it's "perfect" enough to be evolutionary advantageous. >There were no punishment for the older female baboons. No fight when they stopped following the alpha. The alpha is permitted to lead, but only to a point. Of course in not all cases will the alpha be the best leader, I won't even remotely argue that. But I've seen time and time again, the best leaders are often the most bold. Sometimes it's simply not clear what decision should be made and instead of allowing that indecisiveness to spread throughout the group, a decision is quickly made for better or worse and it's confidently executed. Your better leaders will be able to make better decisions from incomplete data that maximize opportunity and reduce risk. There are a few takeaways from your anecdote: 1. Leader doesn't always know what leader is doing, but does it anyway. Sometimes looking the part is more important than being the part. 2. Better a heard of apes lost than a feeding ape alone - predators be watching. 3. Pull on the skills of a larger group - the old and wise female baboons for their apparent localization, the male baboons for fighting off a predator, the females for directly looking after the interests young, etc. The people fulfilling the roles may change, but the roles themselves remain.