4 ms·

> because they are different from country to country, that rules out the possibility that the cause has anything to do with intrinsic differences between men an

> because they are different from country to country, that rules out the possibility that the cause has anything to do with intrinsic differences between men and women, it disproves the idea that there’s a “natural disposition” that is purely based on sex, at least as the primary reason for the distribution today. There is a broad trend that as women are more empowered, they are less likely to go into STEM: 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...

dahart 4y ago
The numbers may be going down in some fields, but that does not mean empowerment is the cause. And in case my point wasn’t clear, your link is not evidence that the distribution is sex based, it is proof that the number of women in STEM fields today is not primarily based on sex. The fact that it was higher and went down within a single generation proves it’s changing for social reasons and cannot be a “natural disposition”. Our biology didn’t change dramatically in 30 years, right? I’m rather skeptical that it’s truly “broad” in historical terms, it’s still changing much too fast. I’m skeptical that trend for 1 or 2 decades is likely to continue and not change direction again, since it’s already changed direction in the last century. Women going into STEM went way up from the 40s to the 80s. In computer science it’s gone down since the 80s in the US, while in India it’s continued going up, and even exceeded 50% one or two years. The numbers in the US vary wildly from field to field, it’s different in CS than it is in biology or math. All of this is further undeniable proof that today’s causes are primarily social and not sex based. The deeper problem with this article is that it flirts with some vague concept of different interests between men and women without addressing the well known fact that social norms influence interests. You simply cannot separate attitudes from cultural biases, it’s not possible, and it’s either ignorant or willfully misleading to suggest otherwise.

dahart 4y ago

The numbers may be going down in some fields, but that does not mean empowerment is the cause. And in case my point wasn’t clear, your link is not evidence that the distribution is sex based, it is proof that the number of women in STEM fields today is not primarily based on sex. The fact that it was higher and went down within a single generation proves it’s changing for social reasons and cannot be a “natural disposition”. Our biology didn’t change dramatically in 30 years, right? I’m rather skeptical that it’s truly “broad” in historical terms, it’s still changing much too fast. I’m skeptical that trend for 1 or 2 decades is likely to continue and not change direction again, since it’s already changed direction in the last century. Women going into STEM went way up from the 40s to the 80s. In computer science it’s gone down since the 80s in the US, while in India it’s continued going up, and even exceeded 50% one or two years. The numbers in the US vary wildly from field to field, it’s different in CS than it is in biology or math. All of this is further undeniable proof that today’s causes are primarily social and not sex based. The deeper problem with this article is that it flirts with some vague concept of different interests between men and women without addressing the well known fact that social norms influence interests. You simply cannot separate attitudes from cultural biases, it’s not possible, and it’s either ignorant or willfully misleading to suggest otherwise.