7 ms·

I'd love to agree with you, but the science provides us[1] with a clear trend: the freer the women and the more equal they are culturally and legally, the lower

by dexen 8y ago

I'd love to agree with you, but the science provides us[1] with a clear trend: the freer the women and the more equal they are culturally and legally, the lower their participation in STEM. That doesn't agree too well with the "shitty behavior" scenario, putting me in a "we need a better explanation with more predictive power" camp for now. [1] off of the top of Google: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

aklemm 8y ago
Not exactly, because I'm not saying we must have more women in STEM at all costs. I'm saying we need them if they want it and will contribute. If the women are truly empowered and being treated fairly and then choosing against STEM, fine.
- traverseda 8y ago
  The big problem there is we seem to be using gender ratio as the main metric for determining if women are empowered and being treated fairly.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Way too early in the process to be faulting that measure, because the ratio is so far out of whack. When its not way out on the bell curve somewhere, then its reasonable to fault the metric.
    - traverseda 8y ago
      But what if women consistently choose fields other then STEM for legitimate non-sexism reasons? Won't that metric do a lot of harm?
      - aklemm 8y ago
        Only if enforcing quotas is the only solution put forward. But realistically what's happening is that girls are being offered lots of STEM enrichment down into elementary school now so we'll know soon enough if they decide to pursue those fields.
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Again, that's arguably unlikely. The stats are so far out of whack. In fact, the argument sounds like an attempt to paper over an uncomfortable problem. I'd think hard about motivation before going down that path.
        traverseda 8y ago
        That stats aren't more out of whack then the stats of psychology or education. STEM and education have very similar gender ratios, and it gets less gendered if you just focus on the T in STEM. There are plenty of female-dominated fields with similar gender ratios as what you see in STEM. Do you think sexism is a good explanation for those female dominated fields?
        JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Of course. Folks go where they're welcome and can make a difference. Its all part of the culture. It can all be changed. The mistake is in thinking its somehow hardwired, or dwelling on who's fault it is. We can all help make our area more welcoming, by removing pointless obstacles and by refraining from casual bias.
    - aklemm 8y ago
      Exactly.
mrhackerpoland 8y ago
There are female influencer making lot of money on Instagram by posting photos of their bodies, makeup kits, outfits etc.... who are making way more than median pay in STEM career. I don't understand why would any woman choose STEM when batter paying gigs are available to them.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Um, is this sarcastic? Maybe because Instagram millionaires are about as common as sports millionaires? Maybe because beauty fades, and doesn’t make for much of a career past age 35? Maybe because not every woman is conventionally beautiful? Maybe because some of us couldn’t care less about fashion or makeup? Maybe because we enjoy technical work? Maybe because some of us are damn good at it? Maybe because we enjoy producing value with - and being valued for - our brains instead of our bodies? “Look at the salaries pro football players make. I don’t understand why any man would choose STEM when better paying gigs are available to them.”
  - mrhackerpoland 8y ago
    > Maybe because Instagram millionaires are about as common as sports millionaires? If you enjoy it, that's good. But not everyone enjoys it and that's why STEM has lower praticipation from females and that's what we are discussing here. I didn't say millionaire anywhere. Many modeling gigs pay more than entry level median salaries in STEM. It's about efforts vs reward. People in STEM require years of education compared to posting a product review on Instgram which doesn't even require a high school certificate. Don't compare it to Pro football players either which is very risky and requires years of training and money.
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by dexen 8y ago

aklemm 8y ago

Not exactly, because I'm not saying we must have more women in STEM at all costs. I'm saying we need them if they want it and will contribute. If the women are truly empowered and being treated fairly and then choosing against STEM, fine.

traverseda 8y ago
The big problem there is we seem to be using gender ratio as the main metric for determining if women are empowered and being treated fairly.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Way too early in the process to be faulting that measure, because the ratio is so far out of whack. When its not way out on the bell curve somewhere, then its reasonable to fault the metric.
  - traverseda 8y ago
    But what if women consistently choose fields other then STEM for legitimate non-sexism reasons? Won't that metric do a lot of harm?
    - aklemm 8y ago
      Only if enforcing quotas is the only solution put forward. But realistically what's happening is that girls are being offered lots of STEM enrichment down into elementary school now so we'll know soon enough if they decide to pursue those fields.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Again, that's arguably unlikely. The stats are so far out of whack. In fact, the argument sounds like an attempt to paper over an uncomfortable problem. I'd think hard about motivation before going down that path.
      - traverseda 8y ago
        That stats aren't more out of whack then the stats of psychology or education. STEM and education have very similar gender ratios, and it gets less gendered if you just focus on the T in STEM. There are plenty of female-dominated fields with similar gender ratios as what you see in STEM. Do you think sexism is a good explanation for those female dominated fields?
        JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        Of course. Folks go where they're welcome and can make a difference. Its all part of the culture. It can all be changed. The mistake is in thinking its somehow hardwired, or dwelling on who's fault it is. We can all help make our area more welcoming, by removing pointless obstacles and by refraining from casual bias.
  - aklemm 8y ago
    Exactly.

mrhackerpoland 8y ago

There are female influencer making lot of money on Instagram by posting photos of their bodies, makeup kits, outfits etc.... who are making way more than median pay in STEM career. I don't understand why would any woman choose STEM when batter paying gigs are available to them.

cimmanom 8y ago
Um, is this sarcastic? Maybe because Instagram millionaires are about as common as sports millionaires? Maybe because beauty fades, and doesn’t make for much of a career past age 35? Maybe because not every woman is conventionally beautiful? Maybe because some of us couldn’t care less about fashion or makeup? Maybe because we enjoy technical work? Maybe because some of us are damn good at it? Maybe because we enjoy producing value with - and being valued for - our brains instead of our bodies? “Look at the salaries pro football players make. I don’t understand why any man would choose STEM when better paying gigs are available to them.”
- mrhackerpoland 8y ago
  > Maybe because Instagram millionaires are about as common as sports millionaires? If you enjoy it, that's good. But not everyone enjoys it and that's why STEM has lower praticipation from females and that's what we are discussing here. I didn't say millionaire anywhere. Many modeling gigs pay more than entry level median salaries in STEM. It's about efforts vs reward. People in STEM require years of education compared to posting a product review on Instgram which doesn't even require a high school certificate. Don't compare it to Pro football players either which is very risky and requires years of training and money.
dang 8y ago
We've banned this account for posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html