5 ms·

> If you're a male child interested in science and in high school right now you've been through 8 years telling you that you should not go into science because

> If you're a male child interested in science and in high school right now you've been through 8 years telling you that you should not go into science because they need more women of colour who follow the right religions and have the right sexual orientation. You're constantly bombarded with "SCIENCE DOES NOT WANT MEN". This is profoundly contrary to my experience mentoring young students, the approach of my teacher friends and acquaintances, the experiences of family members. When this topic does come up -- and it does -- it's done specifically with the notion of normalizing the idea that people of all backgrounds can, should and will be scientists and mathematicians. It's entirely unproductive to the project of establishing a more welcoming future by, as you say, declaring "SCIENCE DOES NOT WANT MEN". The loss of an exclusive status does not necessarily imply a discriminatory regime, though you've clearly framed things that way for yourself. Governments aren't "shaping science funding to punish having male staff" they're preferentially awarding funding to labs that are not exclusively or predominately male. I know enough excellent scientists who've been chased out of labs on account of sexual harassment to know that there's _plenty_ of reasons for a lab to be exclusively male besides "merit and talent". In fact, I argue that if you allow systematic inequalities to shape a field you're specifically undercutting people who might otherwise have succeed because of their talents and drive. > I'm sorry but science has to go through a decline in the West for a bit. The real issue, as others have pointed out in this thread, is the need for scientists to chase funding at all times, whether by seeking out grants or side-gigs in graduate school to supplement a meager stipend. The issue is emphatically not that your favored subset of humanity isn't esteemed like you think proper. Fix your heart.

shard972 8y ago
You conflate "losing your exclusive status" with the push to equalize representation in workplaces. There isn't an infinite amount of jobs for any particular field or workplace at any one time, if you pursue a campaign of equality of roles going to men/women in a male dominated field, your going to have to reject some men who otherwise would have qualified.
- troutwine 8y ago
  > You conflate "losing your exclusive status" with the push to equalize representation in workplaces. I am not. You have done that for me and incorrectly. Firstly, It's absolutely appropriate to inform children that people of all backgrounds can, should and will become scientists and mathematicians and to encourage children with these interests to pursue them. Separately, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of behaviour as a society that artificially filters some subset of humanity out of a field they would otherwise be able to contribute to owning to individual talent and ambition. > There isn't an infinite amount of jobs for any particular field or workplace at any one time, if you pursue a campaign of equality of roles going to men/women in a male dominated field, your going to have to reject some men who otherwise would have qualified. This viciously cuts the other way too. If you leave a systematic inequality in place you prop up otherwise untalented schlubs who edged out people of merit. In my own field, software, I've seen talented software engineers leave companies that needed them because of continued, unwanted and rebuffed sexual advances by some EXTREMELY mediocre software engineers. These dullards then merrily added negative value alone in their pit of reinforced homogeneity. More effective HR would help in this particular example but, hey, so too would having a shop that wasn't almost entirely of homogeneous background in the first place.
  - shard972 8y ago
    So what if we do inform kids of all backgrounds they can do whatever they want and we still end up with 95% of programmers being white males? That would be ok and would require no more effort to correct in your book? To your second point, then my recommendation to employers is that they should hire only these great women who have been sexually harassed. It seems clear whoever does this will have a large competitive advantage.
dnbgfher 8y ago
> When this topic does come up -- and it does -- it's done specifically with the notion of normalizing the idea that people of all backgrounds can, should and will be scientists and mathematicians. This line of thought always confuses me a bit. Unfortunately the image of those that question such things is so poor it's rather discouraging to even bring up. I should really try to stress that I'm not trying to say how things should be. I think these issues are more complex than most anybody gives them credit for, and everybody has their own desired outcomes, timelines, and acceptable consequences. All I'm trying to do is explain perceptions, really. The main line of thought that tends to result in all the focus on women in science and programs to help women succeed in science seems to include the idea that the societal conception that scientists are male pushes females away from science. There are of course other issues like you brought up that impact retention of female scientists, but much of the science-specific efforts aren't focused on retention but rather initial interest. That's fine, and a decent enough issue to go after. However, what many people seem to have trouble seeing is how these programs can reasonably provoke reactions like the one you responded to using the very same logic that promoted the creation of those programs in the first place. If you can see how media depictions and general expectations so severely shunt women away from science, is it really so hard to understand how the focus and programs promoting women in science may be having a negative impact on men wishing to go into science? The pressures aren't exactly the same, what with one being sort of a general thing while the other is more purposeful and focused. Who knows how they balance relative to each other, and people won't even agree on where that balance should be. However, I do understand how people can take the more purposeful one more personally. You have specifically putting out these influences that you can latch onto, while you can't really do that with a vague general feeling. So, hell if I know how to even determine who is right here, though I suspect nobody is or ever will be. But I'd really like to see more thought put into how things effect everybody and some more understanding that people may have justifiable negative responses to things you personally consider to be positive. And neither of you has to be wrong. Or fix themselves.
- troutwine 8y ago
  > If you can see how media depictions and general expectations so severely shunt women away from science, is it really so hard to understand how the focus and programs promoting women in science may be having a negative impact on men wishing to go into science? Hi, yes it is hard to understand. If you are a child and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "Welp, I clearly am not welcome here." then you need mentoring help from an adult to prop up your self-esteem. If you are an adult and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "OOOOH I AM NOW OPPRESSED" then you are either pitiable for how far off the rails you've gone or are now pushing a motive distinct from leading your people out of the inhospitable land where talent and ambition are primary. > So, hell if I know how to even determine who is right here, though I suspect nobody is or ever will be Nobody is... nobody is or ever will be right? Listen, here's my motivating principles. I believe in the equality of opportunity. I believe we live and die and have a responsibility to leave the world more just and free than we found it. I believe we're working off partial information and even with the best information any attempt to leave the world more just and free will, inevitably, do a little bit of the opposite. That's why we should leave wiggle room for future generations. Now, access to opportunity in this particular discussion is limited owing to a systematic preference for a subset of humanity, shutting or pushing out the otherwise talented and ambitious from science and mathematics. It is entirely possible, though I argue not probable, that by pushing for a world in which all people from all backgrounds can do science if they have a talent for it is going to somehow have dystopic results. I know for a fact that our current approach of letting in-group dynamics and selective representation act as a filter of otherwise talented and ambitious people is actively dystopic. So, move along the gradient. Move from "absolutely very bad" to "very, very unlikely to be just as bad but also in a different way". In passing, I will also note that your comment and grandparent weight a hypothetical bad equally with a demonstrable bad. I reject this weighting. > And neither of you has to be wrong. Seems like pretty dichotomous positions to me. > Or fix themselves. The grandparent should absolutely fix their heart.

shard972 8y ago

You conflate "losing your exclusive status" with the push to equalize representation in workplaces. There isn't an infinite amount of jobs for any particular field or workplace at any one time, if you pursue a campaign of equality of roles going to men/women in a male dominated field, your going to have to reject some men who otherwise would have qualified.

troutwine 8y ago
> You conflate "losing your exclusive status" with the push to equalize representation in workplaces. I am not. You have done that for me and incorrectly. Firstly, It's absolutely appropriate to inform children that people of all backgrounds can, should and will become scientists and mathematicians and to encourage children with these interests to pursue them. Separately, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of behaviour as a society that artificially filters some subset of humanity out of a field they would otherwise be able to contribute to owning to individual talent and ambition. > There isn't an infinite amount of jobs for any particular field or workplace at any one time, if you pursue a campaign of equality of roles going to men/women in a male dominated field, your going to have to reject some men who otherwise would have qualified. This viciously cuts the other way too. If you leave a systematic inequality in place you prop up otherwise untalented schlubs who edged out people of merit. In my own field, software, I've seen talented software engineers leave companies that needed them because of continued, unwanted and rebuffed sexual advances by some EXTREMELY mediocre software engineers. These dullards then merrily added negative value alone in their pit of reinforced homogeneity. More effective HR would help in this particular example but, hey, so too would having a shop that wasn't almost entirely of homogeneous background in the first place.
- shard972 8y ago
  So what if we do inform kids of all backgrounds they can do whatever they want and we still end up with 95% of programmers being white males? That would be ok and would require no more effort to correct in your book? To your second point, then my recommendation to employers is that they should hire only these great women who have been sexually harassed. It seems clear whoever does this will have a large competitive advantage.

dnbgfher 8y ago

> When this topic does come up -- and it does -- it's done specifically with the notion of normalizing the idea that people of all backgrounds can, should and will be scientists and mathematicians. This line of thought always confuses me a bit. Unfortunately the image of those that question such things is so poor it's rather discouraging to even bring up. I should really try to stress that I'm not trying to say how things should be. I think these issues are more complex than most anybody gives them credit for, and everybody has their own desired outcomes, timelines, and acceptable consequences. All I'm trying to do is explain perceptions, really. The main line of thought that tends to result in all the focus on women in science and programs to help women succeed in science seems to include the idea that the societal conception that scientists are male pushes females away from science. There are of course other issues like you brought up that impact retention of female scientists, but much of the science-specific efforts aren't focused on retention but rather initial interest. That's fine, and a decent enough issue to go after. However, what many people seem to have trouble seeing is how these programs can reasonably provoke reactions like the one you responded to using the very same logic that promoted the creation of those programs in the first place. If you can see how media depictions and general expectations so severely shunt women away from science, is it really so hard to understand how the focus and programs promoting women in science may be having a negative impact on men wishing to go into science? The pressures aren't exactly the same, what with one being sort of a general thing while the other is more purposeful and focused. Who knows how they balance relative to each other, and people won't even agree on where that balance should be. However, I do understand how people can take the more purposeful one more personally. You have specifically putting out these influences that you can latch onto, while you can't really do that with a vague general feeling. So, hell if I know how to even determine who is right here, though I suspect nobody is or ever will be. But I'd really like to see more thought put into how things effect everybody and some more understanding that people may have justifiable negative responses to things you personally consider to be positive. And neither of you has to be wrong. Or fix themselves.

troutwine 8y ago
> If you can see how media depictions and general expectations so severely shunt women away from science, is it really so hard to understand how the focus and programs promoting women in science may be having a negative impact on men wishing to go into science? Hi, yes it is hard to understand. If you are a child and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "Welp, I clearly am not welcome here." then you need mentoring help from an adult to prop up your self-esteem. If you are an adult and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "OOOOH I AM NOW OPPRESSED" then you are either pitiable for how far off the rails you've gone or are now pushing a motive distinct from leading your people out of the inhospitable land where talent and ambition are primary. > So, hell if I know how to even determine who is right here, though I suspect nobody is or ever will be Nobody is... nobody is or ever will be right? Listen, here's my motivating principles. I believe in the equality of opportunity. I believe we live and die and have a responsibility to leave the world more just and free than we found it. I believe we're working off partial information and even with the best information any attempt to leave the world more just and free will, inevitably, do a little bit of the opposite. That's why we should leave wiggle room for future generations. Now, access to opportunity in this particular discussion is limited owing to a systematic preference for a subset of humanity, shutting or pushing out the otherwise talented and ambitious from science and mathematics. It is entirely possible, though I argue not probable, that by pushing for a world in which all people from all backgrounds can do science if they have a talent for it is going to somehow have dystopic results. I know for a fact that our current approach of letting in-group dynamics and selective representation act as a filter of otherwise talented and ambitious people is actively dystopic. So, move along the gradient. Move from "absolutely very bad" to "very, very unlikely to be just as bad but also in a different way". In passing, I will also note that your comment and grandparent weight a hypothetical bad equally with a demonstrable bad. I reject this weighting. > And neither of you has to be wrong. Seems like pretty dichotomous positions to me. > Or fix themselves. The grandparent should absolutely fix their heart.