4 ms·

> 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 mor

> 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.

neaanopri 9y ago
If STEM would "naturally" be 60% men, 40% women, and sexism makes it 80% men, 20% women, it's important to fight sexism so that the 20% of women can get their career back. It's just insane that people make the leap from "STEM might not have equal interest between men and women" to "Diversity-promoting programs are harmful".
- naasking 9y ago
  Except you're making the leap that the natural ratio is much higher than the norms that are seen in every progressive nation on Earth, many of which have very different cultures. Don't you see how this shifts the burden to those who claim it's naturally higher to demonstrate this fact? Any other position is literally assuming the existing culture is full of bigots that must be stopped and forced to comply via "diversity promoting programs", all of which may ultimately have zero positive effects. How is that not insane?
naasking 9y ago
> 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. You would be incorrect. Programming used to be considered an offshoot of secretarial and data entry work, which is why it was once dominated by women. Then men's engagement skyrocketed while women's ambled along at a more gradual pace. Secondly, this isn't about ability. Women are just as capable of doing this work, but there does exist an innate interest component. I recommend you read up on the people vs. things hypothesis, which has a high degree of predictive success in categorizing those who ultimately choose STEM work [1]. Those interested in working with things are driven towards pure STEM, and those interested in working with people largely avoid STEM or do STEM where they can apply those skills to work with people (think chemistry degrees to become pharmacists, math degrees to become teachers, etc.). And lo and behold, wouldn't you know that those interested in working with things are largely men, by a significant margin, and those interested in working with people are largely women. Some of these tendencies may be socially influenced, but these preferences show up as young as grade 3! Now there's definitely discrimination in STEM, but I haven't seen a comparative analysis that demonstrates that STEM exhibits worse rates of discrimination than other fields, such that it deserves all of this negative press. People just seem to assume that's the case because of the gender ratios and some terrible discrimination stories you've no doubt read about. I've read such stories about medicine and law, which have long since achieved gender parity. So then empathetic people naturally conclude that the best way to stop this discrimination is by balancing the gender scales, but this whole edifice is based on very questionable premises, and the remedy consists of literally forcing women to pursue careers they're not interested in. The cure seems frankly worse than the disease. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...
coldtea 9y ago
>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. So, doesn't the post contradict this? Less women are in STEM in countries with BETTER equality.

neaanopri 9y ago

If STEM would "naturally" be 60% men, 40% women, and sexism makes it 80% men, 20% women, it's important to fight sexism so that the 20% of women can get their career back. It's just insane that people make the leap from "STEM might not have equal interest between men and women" to "Diversity-promoting programs are harmful".

naasking 9y ago
Except you're making the leap that the natural ratio is much higher than the norms that are seen in every progressive nation on Earth, many of which have very different cultures. Don't you see how this shifts the burden to those who claim it's naturally higher to demonstrate this fact? Any other position is literally assuming the existing culture is full of bigots that must be stopped and forced to comply via "diversity promoting programs", all of which may ultimately have zero positive effects. How is that not insane?

naasking 9y ago

> 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. You would be incorrect. Programming used to be considered an offshoot of secretarial and data entry work, which is why it was once dominated by women. Then men's engagement skyrocketed while women's ambled along at a more gradual pace. Secondly, this isn't about ability. Women are just as capable of doing this work, but there does exist an innate interest component. I recommend you read up on the people vs. things hypothesis, which has a high degree of predictive success in categorizing those who ultimately choose STEM work [1]. Those interested in working with things are driven towards pure STEM, and those interested in working with people largely avoid STEM or do STEM where they can apply those skills to work with people (think chemistry degrees to become pharmacists, math degrees to become teachers, etc.). And lo and behold, wouldn't you know that those interested in working with things are largely men, by a significant margin, and those interested in working with people are largely women. Some of these tendencies may be socially influenced, but these preferences show up as young as grade 3! Now there's definitely discrimination in STEM, but I haven't seen a comparative analysis that demonstrates that STEM exhibits worse rates of discrimination than other fields, such that it deserves all of this negative press. People just seem to assume that's the case because of the gender ratios and some terrible discrimination stories you've no doubt read about. I've read such stories about medicine and law, which have long since achieved gender parity. So then empathetic people naturally conclude that the best way to stop this discrimination is by balancing the gender scales, but this whole edifice is based on very questionable premises, and the remedy consists of literally forcing women to pursue careers they're not interested in. The cure seems frankly worse than the disease. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...

coldtea 9y ago

>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. So, doesn't the post contradict this? Less women are in STEM in countries with BETTER equality.