4 ms·

There's actually quite a bit of science on toy preference in infants[1], but the existence of such evidence is routinely denied. The problem is that this has be

There's actually quite a bit of science on toy preference in infants[1], but the existence of such evidence is routinely denied. The problem is that this has become a political topic. I'm happy for all the women who choose to go into STEM, who enjoy doing that work, and who succeed. I still think that it's problematic to explain away the huge gender imbalances in STEM fields based on the idea that it's all because of oppression or social norms. Consider the medical field. Those used to be very much male-dominated, but nowadays, there are more women graduating out of med school than men, and AFAIK, under a certain age, most young doctors are female. Women are also going into law at a higher rate than they are in CS. Law has a reputation for being macho and toxic as hell, but that's not stopping women from entering the field. Why do we blame the gender imbalance in CS purely on oppression, discrimination or social norms? As far as there being more women in STEM during WWII than there are now, and that disproving the idea that there could be natural differences in preferences (again, on average, this is not absolute), and that somehow disproving the idea of sex differences in preferences... Many young men were sent to war during WWII and women were given extra incentives to enter the field. It wasn't exactly a situation where people were just choosing things based on their own free will. After WWII, you had a situation where a few million young men had died, and the women who were now working in those fields kept doing so. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7

danShumway 5y ago
Two issues. First with the theory itself: > Consider the medical field. Those used to be very much male-dominated, but nowadays, there are more women graduating out of med school than men, and AFAIK, under a certain age, most young doctors are female. Women are also going into law at a higher rate than they are in CS. To look at multiple fields that used the exact same statistics and arguments to justify their gender gaps, and that have since been proven wrong, and to argue that CS/STEM is the one field where that's never going to happen -- is just a wild leap in logic to me. There is, of course, some decent research on infant preferences. How that relates to abstract code is an exercise left to the reader. But it should give you some pause that after the doctors pointed at infant preferences and said, "that's why there aren't women doctors", and after the lawyers pointed at infant preferences and said, "that's why women don't want to be in high-stress environments", and after both of those fields were proven wrong, you're now using practically the same arguments verbatim and claiming that this time the link is real and not just projection. ---- Secondly though, I want to talk about the overall context of the conversation we're having. The idea that sex differences contribute (both socially and biologically) to different experiences and development is not what this debate is about. The criticism of of biological explanations for gender gaps is not a denial of biology, it is an assertion that biology on its own is not sufficient to explain current gaps. So I want to push back on the inevitable claim that always comes up in these threads that this is a fight over whether biology is real or whether sex can possibly have an impact on preferences. If that's what the claim was, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation; biological differences between sexes is a completely uncontroversial idea even in the majority of feminist circles. Equality activists are not against looking at biology as part of their research into gender gaps. What proponents of biological want in practice is not acknowledgement that biological differences exist, but a denial that other social differences exist. Look over this thread; what are the actual arguments that are being made? > Just as men are less likely to be nurses/grade school teachers, they don't play to each sex's strengths. And that's ok > Politics are preventing us, as a species, from properly understanding ourselves. > There is everything about nursing that is gender specific. Men are interested in things, women are interested in people > Unfortunately HR departments just look at the employment statistics and decide that the numbers need to be 50/50, for some reason The overwhelming sentiment I see every time I get into one of these conversations isn't "biological differences exist", it's "gender gaps are fine because biology exists, and we shouldn't look into the social aspects because biology is a good enough explanation." Maybe you're not in that camp. If not, then I apologize, I don't mean to just lump you in with other commenters. But I think it's short-sighted to look at fields that by your own admittance have seen large demographic shifts because of social changes, and to argue that the people suggesting that Computer Science might have similar problems are being unreasonable or denying that sex exists. If anything the situation is the opposite; we know, very observably, that culture shapes interest during early development. If we can have a conversation about equity while acknowledging that sex exists and has physical effects on people, we also should be able to acknowledge that culture exists without people immediately bristling and complaining about "politics".
- snek_case 5y ago
  To lump me in with other commenters on this thread with short quotes that you handpicked is called strawmanning. It's a dishonest debate tactic.

danShumway 5y ago

Two issues. First with the theory itself: > Consider the medical field. Those used to be very much male-dominated, but nowadays, there are more women graduating out of med school than men, and AFAIK, under a certain age, most young doctors are female. Women are also going into law at a higher rate than they are in CS. To look at multiple fields that used the exact same statistics and arguments to justify their gender gaps, and that have since been proven wrong, and to argue that CS/STEM is the one field where that's never going to happen -- is just a wild leap in logic to me. There is, of course, some decent research on infant preferences. How that relates to abstract code is an exercise left to the reader. But it should give you some pause that after the doctors pointed at infant preferences and said, "that's why there aren't women doctors", and after the lawyers pointed at infant preferences and said, "that's why women don't want to be in high-stress environments", and after both of those fields were proven wrong, you're now using practically the same arguments verbatim and claiming that this time the link is real and not just projection. ---- Secondly though, I want to talk about the overall context of the conversation we're having. The idea that sex differences contribute (both socially and biologically) to different experiences and development is not what this debate is about. The criticism of of biological explanations for gender gaps is not a denial of biology, it is an assertion that biology on its own is not sufficient to explain current gaps. So I want to push back on the inevitable claim that always comes up in these threads that this is a fight over whether biology is real or whether sex can possibly have an impact on preferences. If that's what the claim was, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation; biological differences between sexes is a completely uncontroversial idea even in the majority of feminist circles. Equality activists are not against looking at biology as part of their research into gender gaps. What proponents of biological want in practice is not acknowledgement that biological differences exist, but a denial that other social differences exist. Look over this thread; what are the actual arguments that are being made? > Just as men are less likely to be nurses/grade school teachers, they don't play to each sex's strengths. And that's ok > Politics are preventing us, as a species, from properly understanding ourselves. > There is everything about nursing that is gender specific. Men are interested in things, women are interested in people > Unfortunately HR departments just look at the employment statistics and decide that the numbers need to be 50/50, for some reason The overwhelming sentiment I see every time I get into one of these conversations isn't "biological differences exist", it's "gender gaps are fine because biology exists, and we shouldn't look into the social aspects because biology is a good enough explanation." Maybe you're not in that camp. If not, then I apologize, I don't mean to just lump you in with other commenters. But I think it's short-sighted to look at fields that by your own admittance have seen large demographic shifts because of social changes, and to argue that the people suggesting that Computer Science might have similar problems are being unreasonable or denying that sex exists. If anything the situation is the opposite; we know, very observably, that culture shapes interest during early development. If we can have a conversation about equity while acknowledging that sex exists and has physical effects on people, we also should be able to acknowledge that culture exists without people immediately bristling and complaining about "politics".

snek_case 5y ago
To lump me in with other commenters on this thread with short quotes that you handpicked is called strawmanning. It's a dishonest debate tactic.