33 ms·

> Slightly baffling to see this celebrated by men in these careers as some kind of vindication. An amusing and insightful observation. I would say it's baffli

> Slightly baffling to see this celebrated by men in these careers as some kind of vindication. An amusing and insightful observation. I would say it's baffling until you realize that the alternative is that the whole the gap in female STEM employment continues to be attributed solely to male sexism. It's better to be perceived as stupid than evil. Also, are we all now in agreement that there are likely cognitive differences between men and women, and that it is beneficial to explore those differences scientifically? Honest question. edit: missing word

rimliu 9y ago
> are we all now in agreement that there are likely > cognitive differences between men and women Alas, far from it I am afraid. Which is very puzzling. Not many will argue that men and women have different physiology, different physical build. But god forbid from making the assumption that cognitive interests may also differ.
- shostrift 9y ago
  Not sure why you're down voted. You just need to read The Guardian and other liberal press to read how illiberal and intolerant many active feminists are.
- palunon 9y ago
  Do you have relevant scientific literature to back that claim ?
  - pas 9y ago
    http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
I thought the three alternatives were "women are bad at it", "women don't enjoy it", "women are being actively put off it by the men being even more sexist than the sexism baseline of men in other career options". If this is claiming they're actually better skilled than the men, then it opens up more space for the comparative sexism option I would have thought? Just the fact that it contradicts the common wisdom that "women aren't capable of STEM" seems to lend some support to sexism clouding people's objective evaluations.
- lliamander 9y ago
  > I thought the three alternatives were "women are bad at it", "women don't enjoy it", "women are being actively put off it by the men being even more sexist than the sexism baseline of men in other career options". It seemed like it was "women don't enjoy it" was largely the point. That even if women are just as good at math and science as men, that they are even better at other things, and that in societies with greater equality of opportunity women prefer to work at those other things. > If this is claiming they're actually better skilled than the men, then it opens up more space for the comparative sexism option I would have thought? Again, it the article emphasizes that women are better at other things, not necessarily science or mathematics (in some countries they are, but not all). > Just the fact that it contradicts the common wisdom that "women aren't capable of STEM" seems to lend some support to sexism clouding people's objective evaluations. Perhaps people are misreading a lack of interest as a lack of ability. In any case, it weakens the notion of sexism as a causal factor in the employment gap.

rimliu 9y ago

> are we all now in agreement that there are likely > cognitive differences between men and women Alas, far from it I am afraid. Which is very puzzling. Not many will argue that men and women have different physiology, different physical build. But god forbid from making the assumption that cognitive interests may also differ.

shostrift 9y ago
Not sure why you're down voted. You just need to read The Guardian and other liberal press to read how illiberal and intolerant many active feminists are.
palunon 9y ago
Do you have relevant scientific literature to back that claim ?
- pas 9y ago
  http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

I thought the three alternatives were "women are bad at it", "women don't enjoy it", "women are being actively put off it by the men being even more sexist than the sexism baseline of men in other career options". If this is claiming they're actually better skilled than the men, then it opens up more space for the comparative sexism option I would have thought? Just the fact that it contradicts the common wisdom that "women aren't capable of STEM" seems to lend some support to sexism clouding people's objective evaluations.

lliamander 9y ago
> I thought the three alternatives were "women are bad at it", "women don't enjoy it", "women are being actively put off it by the men being even more sexist than the sexism baseline of men in other career options". It seemed like it was "women don't enjoy it" was largely the point. That even if women are just as good at math and science as men, that they are even better at other things, and that in societies with greater equality of opportunity women prefer to work at those other things. > If this is claiming they're actually better skilled than the men, then it opens up more space for the comparative sexism option I would have thought? Again, it the article emphasizes that women are better at other things, not necessarily science or mathematics (in some countries they are, but not all). > Just the fact that it contradicts the common wisdom that "women aren't capable of STEM" seems to lend some support to sexism clouding people's objective evaluations. Perhaps people are misreading a lack of interest as a lack of ability. In any case, it weakens the notion of sexism as a causal factor in the employment gap.