4 ms·

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

by 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.

by aklemm 8y ago

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.