4 ms·

I apologise if I was unclear. What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM -- knowing

I apologise if I was unclear. What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM -- knowing full well that I'm flying outside the tech crowd's Overton window. Let me try to express my belief in a different way, using four bullet points. I hope it's more clear this way. (α) All the studies that claim show that the reason we have more men than women is due to malice (eg. misogyny, unconscious bias) are not standing up to scrutiny. They have no scientific validity. (β) The reason that there are so many 'studies' of the kind I criticise as scientifically baseless is political. There is a political will to have more women in STEM positions. (γ) The overt explanation for this political will is structurally rather similar to the explanation given by the early Soviet Union for the promotion of non-Russian ethnicities over Russians in the policy of constructing the New Soviet man (новый советский человек). This reason is cogently described in Marxism and the National Question [1]. (δ) I'm generally worried about policies similar to those carried out by the author of [1]. [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...

mcv 7y ago
I'd love to see what your basis for your first point is. Misogyny is hardly unproven, and unconscious bias has also been shown through various studies. Sexism is sadly still common in many areas. I think there's mostly an economic need for more people in STEM positions, and with women being underrepresented, that's an obvious place to look for more talent. And there are countries that do have more women in STEM or other scientific positions. So for countries that don't, figuring out what's stopping those women is a valid concern.
- mafribe 7y ago
  basis for your first point is I have read 100s of such 'studies' over the years, they are not meeting even the most basic scientific standards. I have brought one such case to the attention of the university of its author -- to no avail, the university buried it. Publication hoaxes like [1] don't exactly increase confidence, as far as I'm aware the author who exposed the publishing hoax was punished. And then there's the replication crisis (which is not limited to the question at hand), e.g. try to find a suitable replication of stereotype threat. Misogyny ... Sexism Misogyny and Sexism are political terms, they are "Essentially Contested Concept" [2]. mostly an economic need for more people in STEM I agree with this, but note that this is a political reason in a general sense, not one of 'oppression'. So you seem to be agreeing. countries that do have more women in STEM Yes, and the best example are the former Soviet block countries. Note that they did not engage in modern affirmative action as we now know them for STEM in the west -- they more or less allocated people to jobs. is a valid concern. Indeed, but I don't see any reason to believe that the current approach in the west is the best possible one. Mostly it seems to be creating an unaccountable, non-democratic industry of enforcers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept [2] https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-spoofed-retracts-hoax-article/ https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-sp...
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM" This may sound rude, by why are you even talking to me if you're not desiring to engage with me and my literal words? Wouldn't a blog be more suitable for you? Because I'm still not entirely sure how your points interact with me, and why you're responding to me.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

mcv 7y ago

I'd love to see what your basis for your first point is. Misogyny is hardly unproven, and unconscious bias has also been shown through various studies. Sexism is sadly still common in many areas. I think there's mostly an economic need for more people in STEM positions, and with women being underrepresented, that's an obvious place to look for more talent. And there are countries that do have more women in STEM or other scientific positions. So for countries that don't, figuring out what's stopping those women is a valid concern.

mafribe 7y ago
basis for your first point is I have read 100s of such 'studies' over the years, they are not meeting even the most basic scientific standards. I have brought one such case to the attention of the university of its author -- to no avail, the university buried it. Publication hoaxes like [1] don't exactly increase confidence, as far as I'm aware the author who exposed the publishing hoax was punished. And then there's the replication crisis (which is not limited to the question at hand), e.g. try to find a suitable replication of stereotype threat. Misogyny ... Sexism Misogyny and Sexism are political terms, they are "Essentially Contested Concept" [2]. mostly an economic need for more people in STEM I agree with this, but note that this is a political reason in a general sense, not one of 'oppression'. So you seem to be agreeing. countries that do have more women in STEM Yes, and the best example are the former Soviet block countries. Note that they did not engage in modern affirmative action as we now know them for STEM in the west -- they more or less allocated people to jobs. is a valid concern. Indeed, but I don't see any reason to believe that the current approach in the west is the best possible one. Mostly it seems to be creating an unaccountable, non-democratic industry of enforcers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept [2] https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-spoofed-retracts-hoax-article/ https://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/07/philosophy-journal-sp...

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

"What I tried to do was subtly to entice my readers to reflect on the validity of the ruling beliefs about women in STEM" This may sound rude, by why are you even talking to me if you're not desiring to engage with me and my literal words? Wouldn't a blog be more suitable for you? Because I'm still not entirely sure how your points interact with me, and why you're responding to me.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]