8 ms·

As expected, this is the top comment on an article practically built for this argument. It may very well be that men and women have different criteria, but tha

As expected, this is the top comment on an article practically built for this argument. It may very well be that men and women have different criteria, but that is completely irrelevant, and I find this line of argumentation very frustrating as it completely ignores the actual complaints at hand. Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions. Many women feel they are disrespected, unrightfully criticized, and scrutinized to a degree unlike their male counterparts. As a whole, they have recognized that this is not the fault of individuals in their workplaces. It's "natural" to be more critical of the few women in your workplace because as a human, that's how your brain is built to work. Correcting that requires conscious effort on your part, and most are unwilling to correct themselves. Instead, as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM - is to have more women in STEM. This will slowly correct the negatives by causing more individuals to come into contact with women and have to learn how to behave properly. But these same systemic issues prevent many women who would otherwise enter STEM from doing so. No one is claiming that a perfect 50/50 ratio is all we need and then "we're done, pack it up folks". Simply that making efforts to get women into tech is actually a good idea. Women are interested. Women want to do the work. Many that do are forced out for one reason or another, and this makes many not want to do it any longer. Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point.

pacala 9y ago
> as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM I missed when the voting took place. You mean a group of activist women (and men) assumed to talk on behalf of all women in the field?
- aspaceman 9y ago
  Yes. If you feel differently, and you are a woman then I highly encourage you to become more involved with activism because that is the only way to make your voice and opinions heard. It is not fair that all womens' positions have been decided by activists, and many women in tech have specifically noted this issue. However, activism is available for any individual interested in it.
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
    You miss the point that a satisfied person has little incentive for activism. Also, most conservative opinions tend to be met with anything from disgust to derision online, further disincentivizing counter-protest.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      or dismissal.
    - jacobsheehy 9y ago
      > You miss the point that a satisfied person has little incentive for activism. This is interesting - what do you mean by this? I'm not sure what you mean in this context, but in an overall, general sense I strongly disagree. Certainly there is significant incentive for activism from a satisfied person. A person may be satisfied but that does not mean that there is not room for improvement or change. Satisfaction is something that is static, stagnant, and doesn't last forever. One day you may be satisfied with a product or political situation, and the next day you might not be even if it remains unchanged itself. Activism is a method of creating change. Everyone is incentivized by it because everyone can benefit immensely from change, even the ultra-rich. > Also, most conservative opinions tend to be met with anything from disgust to derision online, further disincentivizing counter-protest. I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Depending on the online community, sometimes it is the conservative opinions that are the only ones deemed acceptable by the community (as is often the case here on HN), and in others perhaps the liberal comments. But I have been a liberal commenter on the internet for nearly 20 years and I have found, time and time again, that the internet has little room for acceptance of left-wing opinions.
      - OtterCoder 9y ago
        I am frankly blown away that you feel persecuted for liberal opinions online. We must both go to the wrong fora for our ideologies.
      - briandear 9y ago
        > Everyone is incentivized by it because everyone can benefit immensely from change, even the ultra-rich. Not everyone. And, some people don't feel like they need charge. Some people are actually happy with their life, career and situation. > even the ultra-rich. What does the ultra-rich have to do with anything? You've kind of jumped the shark there.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I think it lacks nuance and can very well be mishandled as an agenda, but the reality is that simply having more women in a particular setting can help make the atmosphere more welcoming of them. (Or people of color. Or long haired hippies. Or whatever group you would like to see more of.) I really think it matters how we get there and most people advocating for it seem to think that piece does not matter, so I certainly have sympathy for the skepticism with which the idea gets met. But observation of actual reality pretty strongly bear's out the idea that if you can succeed in passing a certain threshold, it will tend be self perpetuating beyond that.
lulmerchant 9y ago
This data entirely negates that claim. In countries with the highest levels of gender equality, where women are least likely to experience any of these negative forces, they simply self-select not to participate in certain fields (on average). If you cannot participate in a field where not enough of the people look and act like you, then perhaps you have the problem.
- geofft 9y ago
  > In countries with the highest levels of gender equality, where women are least likely to experience any of these negative forces The data does not support correlating those two. "Gender equality" in this report refers to the factors in Table 1 at http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/measuring-the-global-gender-gap/ http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/mea... , which is about things like life expectancy and number of female politicians and salary - not about disrespect, unrightful criticism, and scrutiny in technical fields on the basis of sex.
  - jhall1468 9y ago
    > not about disrespect, unrightful criticism, and scrutiny in technical fields on the basis of sex. Well since these are claims you can undoubted produce data that all of these issues are significant across the entire field?
    - geofft 9y ago
      Sure, give me a research lab and some funding. I don't know that there have been many rigorous studies across all of STEM that measure this effect and give an answer one way or another. For tech in particular, see the Kapor Center's report: https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/ https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/ (which, it should be noted, reports on people who have left tech: the percentages in that report should not be read as the fraction of people in tech who decide to leave).
      - mpweiher 9y ago
joelthelion 9y ago
> Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point. OP did not draw that conclusion.
- aspaceman 9y ago
  The OP did not draw any conclusion besides claiming that what we are doing is bad. I assumed this meant we should not do anything, because doing something is "artificial". If they don't feel that way, they are free to correct my assumption.
- neaanopri 9y ago
  OP's scenario: 1. There are a minority of women in tech. 2. Trying to correct (1) will do more harm than good. aspaceman's scenario: 1. There are a minority of women in tech, because on the whole, more men like tech jobs than women. NOT that NO women would do tech jobs, but in the "absence of discrimination", maybe gender ratios would be 60-40 men or something. 2. Because women are in the minority, male co-workers take them less seriously, and their opinions aren't as valued as mens'. 3. Womens' opinions being less valued, etc., results in women leaving tech for other fields. 4. Tech gender ratios are further skewed than they otherwise would be (Maybe 80-20 men). Now here's where it gets tricky. It _is_ entirely possible that trying to correct these imbalances would do more harm than good. However, it is _also_ possible that there are some "low-hanging fruit" corrections which would bring tech gender ratios back into balance without really inconveniencing anybody. Given that it's possible that some interventions might bring about a more natural gender ratio, it's reasonable to try many different types of interventions, and see which ones work. Note that the root of this problem is men not taking women seriously. The more serious men take womens' views, the better everything gets.
  - aspaceman 9y ago
    I completely agree with this description of my point, and would only add that this sentence "the root of this problem is men not taking women seriously" is what I find to be the most important takeaway. As a person in STEM, you need to take women seriously when they talk about this stuff. Ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss the "minority of women" and "activists'" experiences.
tajen 9y ago
Men have massive school problems and the one field we’re focusing on is STEM. Please everyone, look at the chart of men/female ratio at university since 1980 (hint: men are a minority at uni, hitting 1/3 in the nect years) and explain me why, for $1 spent on females in STEM, we don’t spend $10 on males at university? Men are systematically forgotten in every single « equality » program. Case in point : > Women in STEM complain that... Have we EVER interviewed men in STEM in this whole story ? How do they feel abour the recognition of their skills and hard work ? Oh, yeah, the last one who « talked » was James Damore. Edit: Thanks for the downvotes. I totally feel men are going to be listened to, I totally feel we’re on an equal basis with how women’s problems are equal to men’s problems. Men can go fuck themselves in this society, that’s all I witness. Oh is that a surprise that mens commit suicide at 4x the pace of women? Sure that can’t be because we tell them to fuck off?
- aspaceman 9y ago
  You're free to discuss men's issues in the numerous internet forums, boards, and communities that find this to be an important issue. However I was talking about women, so maybe we should stay focused. My favorite is reddit.com/r/MensLib Why must we respond to legitimate concerns with "but it's hard for us TOO". We can address both at the same time. This does not have to be framed as men vs. women.
- asyncanup 9y ago
  yeah, why don't you? - man
f137 9y ago
<em>Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point.</em> Can you read at all? OP did not say anything like that
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
psyc 9y ago
This comment most closely represents what women friends in tech have expressed to me consistently. I'd like to point out that even if it were agreed upon that women were less interested in STEM careers in aggregate, it would still be valuable to improve this situation for the women who are interested in STEM careers.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions. Many women feel they are disrespected, unrightfully criticized, and scrutinized to a degree unlike their male counterparts. A lot of the girls I meet in tech tell me stories of positive discrimination. One even said she didn't take a higher paid job because she didn't want it offered to her just because she was a woman (I believe the interviewer said that was why they offered it). I didn't hear these kinds of stories 5 years ago but I do now. It all kind of makes me a bit uneasy - I'm not sure this newfound enthusiasm for companies biasing hiring specifically to women is actually making things better for women in tech.
randyrand 9y ago
Perhaps most that feel because society tells them to.
overcast 9y ago
Except the entire point of this article is about how more gender equality doesn't help anything in regards to STEM career choices.
coldtea 9y ago
>Instead, as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM - is to have more women in STEM. This will slowly correct the negatives by causing more individuals to come into contact with women and have to learn how to behave properly. But these same systemic issues prevent many women who would otherwise enter STEM from doing so. No one is claiming that a perfect 50/50 ratio is all we need and then "we're done, pack it up folks". Simply that making efforts to get women into tech is actually a good idea. This doesn't make much sense if we assume that "It may very well be that men and women have different criteria". According to what you wrote, the real problem is that women in STEM have "have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions". For this, the desired solution would obviously be "better treatment of women in STEM" -- not, "more women in STEM". Now, getting more women in STEM might indeed be ONE way to achieve "better treatment of women in STEM", but it's the wrong way to achieve that if more women don't really want to go into STEM. If we are willing to accept that (a) women in STEM have "have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions". (b) "It may very well be that men and women have different criteria" (and might be less inclined to go into STEM) then we should just fix (a). Ensure that women in STEM are treated better -- WHATEVER their percentage of STEM jobs. >Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point. At the same time not entertaining the thought that - as the linked study shows - that women might not just have "different criteria" but like some STEM careers less (and not just the treatment they get while in STEM careers, but some STEM fields in general as fields) makes it a "thought crime" and stops searching for truth in favor of what's the fashionable ideology of the day.
- aspaceman 9y ago
  > it's the wrong way to achieve that if more women don't really want to go into STEM This is a good point, which is why my argument rests on the claim that more women will want to go into STEM if they are going to feel more comfortable in those positions. In my view, it all comes down to why you think women aren't in STEM. Is it because they don't want to do STEM work, or is it because they don't want to be in these spaces? Based on the myriad amount of women who can do work of a similar calibre (in medicine especially), AND the evidence that women used to be not only more welcome in programming, but absolutely DOMINANT in it: I disagree with the former, and subscribe to the latter opinion. I feel that many think that women don't want to do STEM work because they think of the women who made fun of them in high school or some other such rubbish and use that to infer how all women think about STEM (and tech especially). One's reasoning for not being inclined to do STEM is just as important as them not doing it.
mpweiher 9y ago
> As expected, this is the top comment That's because it's a good comment. > men and women have different criteria, but that is completely irrelevant No, it's not at all irrelevant, because the fact that fewer women choose STEM fields has been used to design a narrative about the causes when the evidence does not actually support that narrative, and in fact the simplest explanation is simply that women prefer other fields, and therefore choose these fields unless other pressures override those preferences. > Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions. Citation needed. All we have are (a) individual stories, read anecdotes, not data on actual problems occurring and (b) hard statistical data on the distribution. These two independent facts are woven together to create the narrative that (a) is systemic, for which there is no evidence and the cause of (b), for which there is also no evidence. (I am assuming you mean either "all women" or "women in general", rather than "some women") The only actual data I am aware of was a survey by the ACM a while back[1]. It showed few if any significant differences in job experience, socialization and attitudes between men and women. The differences it did find were "supervisor support, career related", where women reported slightly higher support, and "comfort with technical language" and "confidence in technical skills" where men supported slightly higher levels (but still not huge). Motivation for entering the profession were also largely the same, with men supporting slightly higher for "love of technology/computers" and women reporting slightly higher for "ease of entry into profession", "job security" and "flexible working hours". And of course there's the Ceci/Williams study showing a 2:1 hiring advantage for women in STEM fields (academia). >Women are interested. Yes, some are. But not very many. In fact, most people in general aren't that interested in STEM, it's a minority occupation. > Many that do are forced out for one reason or another In a big survey, the biggest reasons for leaving were "spend more time with family", "lost interest", "no advancement" and "didn't like daily tasks". Again: you are being duped by the narrative. Neither the science (see article) nor the other data back this narrative. [1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-the-it-profession/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...
- silasdavis 9y ago
  > the simplest explanation is simply that women prefer other fields I either don't find this particularly simple or a particularly explanatory. On one reading it's just banal/tautologous; most of this discussion (innate inalienable preference, versus systemic bias, versus cultural pressure) concerns preference in some sense - people choosing to do something rather than being directly forced or prevented. My understanding of this discussion is that it is about what influences preference, and whether we should try and alter those influences across the life of a person. Furthermore it's only really explanatory if you have some a priori expectation that the class of 'woman' ought to possess some group characteristic in this respect. So to me again this seems like a phenomenological observation ('people called Harry are less scared of heights') rather than much of an explanation. The only way I can make sense of it as an explanation is if we are linking some innate biological preference in sexual females with some intrinsic quality inherent in STEM work. I am not ideologically opposed to either biological biases or intrinsic qualities of work from a cognitive standpoint. But the casual chains I have seen spun out from one to the other seem highly inconclusive, partial, or dubious (e.g. some notion of 'mechanical reasoning' to 'preference across all of STEM'). If the argument based on this simple explanation is intended to dismiss or substantially dismiss theories of systemic biases or structural inequality then I would need to be persuaded that there are not too many nooks and crannies for these cultural mechanisms to work. But it seems to me there are. At the start of this chain there are potential biases in early education (even in the neurological bootstrapping of infancy), and at the end of the chain the link between intrinsic quality of work versus how the work is done within a cultural context. To try and be more concrete and hypothetical, what of the effect of the teaching of discursive comprehension based subjects to boys that may make it less likely to be their best subject, what about the types of things given to babies to play with (I see this regularly with a 6 month year old daughter), what about the differential effect on working hours across pregnancy, what about the way in which daily tasks in STEM are defined, etc. Seems to me like there are many degrees of freedom here. To me the cognitive difference between women and men seem like minor cognitive perturbations - so it is surprising that this could cause large differences in distributions in some higher order effects many steps removed like profession.
briandear 9y ago
> Women are interested. Women want to do the work. Perhaps this article might shed some light on things: http://neurosciencenews.com/women-in-neuroscience-4548/ http://neurosciencenews.com/women-in-neuroscience-4548/ (Why are females underrespresented in neuroscience)
rayiner 9y ago
It’s simple: Get it to 50/50 using affirmative measures, and then see if that ratio sticks.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  That isn’t simple at all if women do not want to get into STEM at the same ratio you are either forcing them to chose a career path they do not wish or more likely forcing men into other career paths both of which are destructive like any other the equality of outcome measure. What complicates this even further is that there are more women in secondary education than man and the ratio is growing men are also considerably more likely to drop out of school than women. Both men and women have much bigger problems than the so called STEM ratio problem which is also only apparent in engineering and computer science faculties and less so in other science and then pops up again in the PhD figures.
bobthechef 9y ago
You've changed the goalposts. > No one is claiming that a perfect 50/50 ratio is all we need and then "we're done, pack it up folks". Simply that making efforts to get women into tech is actually a good idea. Not true. The concern IS over statistical gender bias and the automatic assumption by many on the radical left that if women (no concern about men) do not make up at least 50% of some occupation's workforce, then it MUST be because of sexism or implicit bias or whatever. The problem with that claim is that there is little or no evidence for any of that in today's workforce. Furthermore, there is positive evidence that would explain the differences in terms of sex differences, something that is ideological heresy for the radical left. The negatives you speak of, what is the evidence that women are leaving because of hostility toward women in STEM fields? If there is evidence[0], why not address the problem instead of using dubious measures like trying to force other women into fields they don't want to enter just so the ones in STEM feel comfortable. This compulsion to get women into these disciplines against their own wishes is not only intrusive and weird. It's using people. [0] I know of certain types of things women tend to have difficulty with not just in STEM but everywhere, like asking for raises. But that's not hostility nor particular to STEM. Again, that may be something women need to learn to do instead of trying to adapt the world to themselves.
naasking 9y ago
> Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their position. Which is definitely a problem. But there seems to be an implicit assumption that it happens at a higher rate than discrimination in every other field, and thus STEM deserves this criticism. Is this actually true? The only data I've seen keeps harping on gender parity as if parity is its own end, rather than a means to an end as you've suggested. > Instead, as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM - is to have more women in STEM. Did they? Was there a group meeting and they all voted? Where is the evidence that gender parity would actually yield this result? If so, where is the evidence that the gender parity measures being taken would actually lead to parity? This seems to rest on a lot of suppositions. Also, from what I've seen, women in STEM largely aren't driving this movement, contrary to what you seem to believe. > Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point. There are two problems being conflated here: the gender parity "problem", and the sexism/discrimination problem. Articles like this are attacking the arguments that gender parity is a) actually a problem, and b) one that can be solved by simplistic measures like quotas, marketing directed at women, etc. If women truly are less interested in CS and similar fields, then none of these measures are likely to work. And so far they haven't made a dent. I'm also skeptical the discrimination problem will be solved by these measures either. I'd prefer something far more direct.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pacala 9y ago

> as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM I missed when the voting took place. You mean a group of activist women (and men) assumed to talk on behalf of all women in the field?

aspaceman 9y ago
Yes. If you feel differently, and you are a woman then I highly encourage you to become more involved with activism because that is the only way to make your voice and opinions heard. It is not fair that all womens' positions have been decided by activists, and many women in tech have specifically noted this issue. However, activism is available for any individual interested in it.
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  You miss the point that a satisfied person has little incentive for activism. Also, most conservative opinions tend to be met with anything from disgust to derision online, further disincentivizing counter-protest.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    or dismissal.
  - jacobsheehy 9y ago
    > You miss the point that a satisfied person has little incentive for activism. This is interesting - what do you mean by this? I'm not sure what you mean in this context, but in an overall, general sense I strongly disagree. Certainly there is significant incentive for activism from a satisfied person. A person may be satisfied but that does not mean that there is not room for improvement or change. Satisfaction is something that is static, stagnant, and doesn't last forever. One day you may be satisfied with a product or political situation, and the next day you might not be even if it remains unchanged itself. Activism is a method of creating change. Everyone is incentivized by it because everyone can benefit immensely from change, even the ultra-rich. > Also, most conservative opinions tend to be met with anything from disgust to derision online, further disincentivizing counter-protest. I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Depending on the online community, sometimes it is the conservative opinions that are the only ones deemed acceptable by the community (as is often the case here on HN), and in others perhaps the liberal comments. But I have been a liberal commenter on the internet for nearly 20 years and I have found, time and time again, that the internet has little room for acceptance of left-wing opinions.
    - OtterCoder 9y ago
      I am frankly blown away that you feel persecuted for liberal opinions online. We must both go to the wrong fora for our ideologies.
    - briandear 9y ago
      > Everyone is incentivized by it because everyone can benefit immensely from change, even the ultra-rich. Not everyone. And, some people don't feel like they need charge. Some people are actually happy with their life, career and situation. > even the ultra-rich. What does the ultra-rich have to do with anything? You've kind of jumped the shark there.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
I think it lacks nuance and can very well be mishandled as an agenda, but the reality is that simply having more women in a particular setting can help make the atmosphere more welcoming of them. (Or people of color. Or long haired hippies. Or whatever group you would like to see more of.) I really think it matters how we get there and most people advocating for it seem to think that piece does not matter, so I certainly have sympathy for the skepticism with which the idea gets met. But observation of actual reality pretty strongly bear's out the idea that if you can succeed in passing a certain threshold, it will tend be self perpetuating beyond that.

lulmerchant 9y ago

This data entirely negates that claim. In countries with the highest levels of gender equality, where women are least likely to experience any of these negative forces, they simply self-select not to participate in certain fields (on average). If you cannot participate in a field where not enough of the people look and act like you, then perhaps you have the problem.

geofft 9y ago
> In countries with the highest levels of gender equality, where women are least likely to experience any of these negative forces The data does not support correlating those two. "Gender equality" in this report refers to the factors in Table 1 at http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/measuring-the-global-gender-gap/ http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/mea... , which is about things like life expectancy and number of female politicians and salary - not about disrespect, unrightful criticism, and scrutiny in technical fields on the basis of sex.
- jhall1468 9y ago
  > not about disrespect, unrightful criticism, and scrutiny in technical fields on the basis of sex. Well since these are claims you can undoubted produce data that all of these issues are significant across the entire field?
  - geofft 9y ago
    Sure, give me a research lab and some funding. I don't know that there have been many rigorous studies across all of STEM that measure this effect and give an answer one way or another. For tech in particular, see the Kapor Center's report: https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/ https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/ (which, it should be noted, reports on people who have left tech: the percentages in that report should not be read as the fraction of people in tech who decide to leave).
    - mpweiher 9y ago

joelthelion 9y ago

> Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point. OP did not draw that conclusion.

aspaceman 9y ago
The OP did not draw any conclusion besides claiming that what we are doing is bad. I assumed this meant we should not do anything, because doing something is "artificial". If they don't feel that way, they are free to correct my assumption.
neaanopri 9y ago
OP's scenario: 1. There are a minority of women in tech. 2. Trying to correct (1) will do more harm than good. aspaceman's scenario: 1. There are a minority of women in tech, because on the whole, more men like tech jobs than women. NOT that NO women would do tech jobs, but in the "absence of discrimination", maybe gender ratios would be 60-40 men or something. 2. Because women are in the minority, male co-workers take them less seriously, and their opinions aren't as valued as mens'. 3. Womens' opinions being less valued, etc., results in women leaving tech for other fields. 4. Tech gender ratios are further skewed than they otherwise would be (Maybe 80-20 men). Now here's where it gets tricky. It _is_ entirely possible that trying to correct these imbalances would do more harm than good. However, it is _also_ possible that there are some "low-hanging fruit" corrections which would bring tech gender ratios back into balance without really inconveniencing anybody. Given that it's possible that some interventions might bring about a more natural gender ratio, it's reasonable to try many different types of interventions, and see which ones work. Note that the root of this problem is men not taking women seriously. The more serious men take womens' views, the better everything gets.
- aspaceman 9y ago
  I completely agree with this description of my point, and would only add that this sentence "the root of this problem is men not taking women seriously" is what I find to be the most important takeaway. As a person in STEM, you need to take women seriously when they talk about this stuff. Ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss the "minority of women" and "activists'" experiences.

tajen 9y ago

Men have massive school problems and the one field we’re focusing on is STEM. Please everyone, look at the chart of men/female ratio at university since 1980 (hint: men are a minority at uni, hitting 1/3 in the nect years) and explain me why, for $1 spent on females in STEM, we don’t spend $10 on males at university? Men are systematically forgotten in every single « equality » program. Case in point : > Women in STEM complain that... Have we EVER interviewed men in STEM in this whole story ? How do they feel abour the recognition of their skills and hard work ? Oh, yeah, the last one who « talked » was James Damore. Edit: Thanks for the downvotes. I totally feel men are going to be listened to, I totally feel we’re on an equal basis with how women’s problems are equal to men’s problems. Men can go fuck themselves in this society, that’s all I witness. Oh is that a surprise that mens commit suicide at 4x the pace of women? Sure that can’t be because we tell them to fuck off?

aspaceman 9y ago
You're free to discuss men's issues in the numerous internet forums, boards, and communities that find this to be an important issue. However I was talking about women, so maybe we should stay focused. My favorite is reddit.com/r/MensLib Why must we respond to legitimate concerns with "but it's hard for us TOO". We can address both at the same time. This does not have to be framed as men vs. women.
asyncanup 9y ago
yeah, why don't you? - man

f137 9y ago

<em>Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point.</em> Can you read at all? OP did not say anything like that

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

psyc 9y ago

This comment most closely represents what women friends in tech have expressed to me consistently. I'd like to point out that even if it were agreed upon that women were less interested in STEM careers in aggregate, it would still be valuable to improve this situation for the women who are interested in STEM careers.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions. Many women feel they are disrespected, unrightfully criticized, and scrutinized to a degree unlike their male counterparts. A lot of the girls I meet in tech tell me stories of positive discrimination. One even said she didn't take a higher paid job because she didn't want it offered to her just because she was a woman (I believe the interviewer said that was why they offered it). I didn't hear these kinds of stories 5 years ago but I do now. It all kind of makes me a bit uneasy - I'm not sure this newfound enthusiasm for companies biasing hiring specifically to women is actually making things better for women in tech.

randyrand 9y ago

Perhaps most that feel because society tells them to.

overcast 9y ago

Except the entire point of this article is about how more gender equality doesn't help anything in regards to STEM career choices.

coldtea 9y ago

>Instead, as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM - is to have more women in STEM. This will slowly correct the negatives by causing more individuals to come into contact with women and have to learn how to behave properly. But these same systemic issues prevent many women who would otherwise enter STEM from doing so. No one is claiming that a perfect 50/50 ratio is all we need and then "we're done, pack it up folks". Simply that making efforts to get women into tech is actually a good idea. This doesn't make much sense if we assume that "It may very well be that men and women have different criteria". According to what you wrote, the real problem is that women in STEM have "have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions". For this, the desired solution would obviously be "better treatment of women in STEM" -- not, "more women in STEM". Now, getting more women in STEM might indeed be ONE way to achieve "better treatment of women in STEM", but it's the wrong way to achieve that if more women don't really want to go into STEM. If we are willing to accept that (a) women in STEM have "have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions". (b) "It may very well be that men and women have different criteria" (and might be less inclined to go into STEM) then we should just fix (a). Ensure that women in STEM are treated better -- WHATEVER their percentage of STEM jobs. >Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point. At the same time not entertaining the thought that - as the linked study shows - that women might not just have "different criteria" but like some STEM careers less (and not just the treatment they get while in STEM careers, but some STEM fields in general as fields) makes it a "thought crime" and stops searching for truth in favor of what's the fashionable ideology of the day.

aspaceman 9y ago
> it's the wrong way to achieve that if more women don't really want to go into STEM This is a good point, which is why my argument rests on the claim that more women will want to go into STEM if they are going to feel more comfortable in those positions. In my view, it all comes down to why you think women aren't in STEM. Is it because they don't want to do STEM work, or is it because they don't want to be in these spaces? Based on the myriad amount of women who can do work of a similar calibre (in medicine especially), AND the evidence that women used to be not only more welcome in programming, but absolutely DOMINANT in it: I disagree with the former, and subscribe to the latter opinion. I feel that many think that women don't want to do STEM work because they think of the women who made fun of them in high school or some other such rubbish and use that to infer how all women think about STEM (and tech especially). One's reasoning for not being inclined to do STEM is just as important as them not doing it.

mpweiher 9y ago

> As expected, this is the top comment That's because it's a good comment. > men and women have different criteria, but that is completely irrelevant No, it's not at all irrelevant, because the fact that fewer women choose STEM fields has been used to design a narrative about the causes when the evidence does not actually support that narrative, and in fact the simplest explanation is simply that women prefer other fields, and therefore choose these fields unless other pressures override those preferences. > Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions. Citation needed. All we have are (a) individual stories, read anecdotes, not data on actual problems occurring and (b) hard statistical data on the distribution. These two independent facts are woven together to create the narrative that (a) is systemic, for which there is no evidence and the cause of (b), for which there is also no evidence. (I am assuming you mean either "all women" or "women in general", rather than "some women") The only actual data I am aware of was a survey by the ACM a while back[1]. It showed few if any significant differences in job experience, socialization and attitudes between men and women. The differences it did find were "supervisor support, career related", where women reported slightly higher support, and "comfort with technical language" and "confidence in technical skills" where men supported slightly higher levels (but still not huge). Motivation for entering the profession were also largely the same, with men supporting slightly higher for "love of technology/computers" and women reporting slightly higher for "ease of entry into profession", "job security" and "flexible working hours". And of course there's the Ceci/Williams study showing a 2:1 hiring advantage for women in STEM fields (academia). >Women are interested. Yes, some are. But not very many. In fact, most people in general aren't that interested in STEM, it's a minority occupation. > Many that do are forced out for one reason or another In a big survey, the biggest reasons for leaving were "spend more time with family", "lost interest", "no advancement" and "didn't like daily tasks". Again: you are being duped by the narrative. Neither the science (see article) nor the other data back this narrative. [1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-the-it-profession/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...

silasdavis 9y ago
> the simplest explanation is simply that women prefer other fields I either don't find this particularly simple or a particularly explanatory. On one reading it's just banal/tautologous; most of this discussion (innate inalienable preference, versus systemic bias, versus cultural pressure) concerns preference in some sense - people choosing to do something rather than being directly forced or prevented. My understanding of this discussion is that it is about what influences preference, and whether we should try and alter those influences across the life of a person. Furthermore it's only really explanatory if you have some a priori expectation that the class of 'woman' ought to possess some group characteristic in this respect. So to me again this seems like a phenomenological observation ('people called Harry are less scared of heights') rather than much of an explanation. The only way I can make sense of it as an explanation is if we are linking some innate biological preference in sexual females with some intrinsic quality inherent in STEM work. I am not ideologically opposed to either biological biases or intrinsic qualities of work from a cognitive standpoint. But the casual chains I have seen spun out from one to the other seem highly inconclusive, partial, or dubious (e.g. some notion of 'mechanical reasoning' to 'preference across all of STEM'). If the argument based on this simple explanation is intended to dismiss or substantially dismiss theories of systemic biases or structural inequality then I would need to be persuaded that there are not too many nooks and crannies for these cultural mechanisms to work. But it seems to me there are. At the start of this chain there are potential biases in early education (even in the neurological bootstrapping of infancy), and at the end of the chain the link between intrinsic quality of work versus how the work is done within a cultural context. To try and be more concrete and hypothetical, what of the effect of the teaching of discursive comprehension based subjects to boys that may make it less likely to be their best subject, what about the types of things given to babies to play with (I see this regularly with a 6 month year old daughter), what about the differential effect on working hours across pregnancy, what about the way in which daily tasks in STEM are defined, etc. Seems to me like there are many degrees of freedom here. To me the cognitive difference between women and men seem like minor cognitive perturbations - so it is surprising that this could cause large differences in distributions in some higher order effects many steps removed like profession.

briandear 9y ago

> Women are interested. Women want to do the work. Perhaps this article might shed some light on things: http://neurosciencenews.com/women-in-neuroscience-4548/ http://neurosciencenews.com/women-in-neuroscience-4548/ (Why are females underrespresented in neuroscience)

rayiner 9y ago

It’s simple: Get it to 50/50 using affirmative measures, and then see if that ratio sticks.

dogma1138 9y ago
That isn’t simple at all if women do not want to get into STEM at the same ratio you are either forcing them to chose a career path they do not wish or more likely forcing men into other career paths both of which are destructive like any other the equality of outcome measure. What complicates this even further is that there are more women in secondary education than man and the ratio is growing men are also considerably more likely to drop out of school than women. Both men and women have much bigger problems than the so called STEM ratio problem which is also only apparent in engineering and computer science faculties and less so in other science and then pops up again in the PhD figures.

bobthechef 9y ago

You've changed the goalposts. > No one is claiming that a perfect 50/50 ratio is all we need and then "we're done, pack it up folks". Simply that making efforts to get women into tech is actually a good idea. Not true. The concern IS over statistical gender bias and the automatic assumption by many on the radical left that if women (no concern about men) do not make up at least 50% of some occupation's workforce, then it MUST be because of sexism or implicit bias or whatever. The problem with that claim is that there is little or no evidence for any of that in today's workforce. Furthermore, there is positive evidence that would explain the differences in terms of sex differences, something that is ideological heresy for the radical left. The negatives you speak of, what is the evidence that women are leaving because of hostility toward women in STEM fields? If there is evidence[0], why not address the problem instead of using dubious measures like trying to force other women into fields they don't want to enter just so the ones in STEM feel comfortable. This compulsion to get women into these disciplines against their own wishes is not only intrusive and weird. It's using people. [0] I know of certain types of things women tend to have difficulty with not just in STEM but everywhere, like asking for raises. But that's not hostility nor particular to STEM. Again, that may be something women need to learn to do instead of trying to adapt the world to themselves.

naasking 9y ago

> Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their position. Which is definitely a problem. But there seems to be an implicit assumption that it happens at a higher rate than discrimination in every other field, and thus STEM deserves this criticism. Is this actually true? The only data I've seen keeps harping on gender parity as if parity is its own end, rather than a means to an end as you've suggested. > Instead, as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM - is to have more women in STEM. Did they? Was there a group meeting and they all voted? Where is the evidence that gender parity would actually yield this result? If so, where is the evidence that the gender parity measures being taken would actually lead to parity? This seems to rest on a lot of suppositions. Also, from what I've seen, women in STEM largely aren't driving this movement, contrary to what you seem to believe. > Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point. There are two problems being conflated here: the gender parity "problem", and the sexism/discrimination problem. Articles like this are attacking the arguments that gender parity is a) actually a problem, and b) one that can be solved by simplistic measures like quotas, marketing directed at women, etc. If women truly are less interested in CS and similar fields, then none of these measures are likely to work. And so far they haven't made a dent. I'm also skeptical the discrimination problem will be solved by these measures either. I'd prefer something far more direct.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]