3 ms·

>Data showing Iranian women outperforming American women in STEM by a factor of nearly three doesn’t support that case, so it doesn’t get reported. I thought t

by gruez 8mo ago

>Data showing Iranian women outperforming American women in STEM by a factor of nearly three doesn’t support that case, so it doesn’t get reported. I thought the standard explanation for this was that in patriarchal societies women get "hard" degrees because that's their only way out of being oppressed as a housewife, and in more egalitarian societies women pursue what they like?

elcritch 8mo ago
Not sure its a standard explanation, but i recall reading a couple of research articles about that topic.
- Detrytus 8mo ago
  I think it is kind of a paradox which is clearly visible in some progressive Scandinavian countries like Sweden or Denmark.
MathMonkeyMan 8mo ago
That was my thought as well, but all I know is hearsay. It doesn't have to be one or the other, either. Whether women excel in science and medicine is not the sole indicator of their status in society.
- onecommentman 8mo ago
  But it is one objective indicator in the right direction.
  - spwa4 8mo ago
    No it isn't. IT IS A WAY OUT. The west only accepts Iranian women with degrees (same for men, same for any other place for that matter, if they accept anyone at all, and for obvious reasons Russia is out, especially for men) In other words, yes, the islamic revolution is making women smarter. Men too, but not to the same degree. But in the worst way possible. By putting a gun to their head and torturing them non-stop, then effectively letting the smartest 5% out. Yes regime apologists want to call that "making women smarter" because "torturing women", what islam actually does, sounds ... unlikely to gather support for stopping the war and it's not like they care about these women.
lurkercodemnky 8mo ago
[flagged]
- echelon 8mo ago
  Can't people decide for themselves what matters? Life is a short few trips around the sun, then eternal annihilation. If you really want to ascribe "value" to it: prosperity tends to create chill attitudes. You see this in individuals (nepotism) and in societies. It's just evolutionary economics: genes, ideas, species spend in times of plenty, save in times of drought.
  - lurkercodemnky 8mo ago
    Is that the excuse for the life of online dating apps and only fans? You're destroying the society which your "conservative" "backward" forefathers built.
    - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
      > You're destroying the society which your "conservative" "backward" forefathers built. “The dead should not rule the living" —- Thomas Jefferson
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > maybe you shouldn't be lecturing "patriarchal backward societies"? It's perfectly fair to criticize modern Iran. Particularly when it comes to mis-allocating its skilled population and history. Look at it from the perspective of fitness: if Iran had let these women study and work freely, and had invested its resources in growing its economy instead of a dud of a nuclear programme, might it–not Israel–be the region's hegemon? > That's why developing countries have many STEM graduates Number of scientists and engineers per capita is directly propotional to GDP per capita [1]. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-vs-number-of-scientists-and-engineers-per-million-people_fig2_358835259 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-vs-number...
  - 8mo ago
wanderlust123 8mo ago
Except what you are saying doesn’t really make sense and is implicitly sexist. You are assuming women in those countries don’t enjoy studying these subjects. Also, to pursue a hard STEM degree or phd would detract from being a housewife, so no “oppressive” husband would allow that in the first place. Ergo the women pursuing these paths are not oppressed in the first place.
- Dylan16807 8mo ago
  > You are assuming women in those countries don’t enjoy studying these subjects. It does not assume that. Even with equal enjoyment of multiple subjects, there's a lot of other factors that affect what you study. And you can enjoy subjects that aren't your favorite. > Also, to pursue a hard STEM degree or phd would detract from being a housewife, so no “oppressive” husband would allow that in the first place. Ergo the women pursuing these paths are not oppressed in the first place. What percent of the women in these programs are already married? That counterargument only applies to women that currently have husbands, not women worried about future husbands.
  - wanderlust123 8mo ago
    It absolutely does assume that. There is an implicit assumption in their argument that women are doing something they don’t want to due to “oppression”. The percent of women being married is irrelevant. Women can be oppressed even if they are not married due to societal expectations. If a single woman is expected not to pursue education and simply become a housewife, then it’s irrelevant whether she is married or not. She is oppressed. However, that is literally a contradiction because STEM education shows high representation of women in Iran. Honestly there are a lot of people here asserting what they think are facts who don’t have the slightest idea how the world works outside their own city, let alone country. I would encourage some critical thinking when it comes to stuff like this.
    - Tarsul 8mo ago
      I have an anecdata where it was true: Angela Merkel. She studied physics not because it was her favorite but because in the system that she lived (GDR) it made more sense than social studies or politics.
huddert 8mo ago
[flagged]

by gruez 8mo ago

elcritch 8mo ago

Not sure its a standard explanation, but i recall reading a couple of research articles about that topic.

Detrytus 8mo ago
I think it is kind of a paradox which is clearly visible in some progressive Scandinavian countries like Sweden or Denmark.

MathMonkeyMan 8mo ago

That was my thought as well, but all I know is hearsay. It doesn't have to be one or the other, either. Whether women excel in science and medicine is not the sole indicator of their status in society.

onecommentman 8mo ago
But it is one objective indicator in the right direction.
- spwa4 8mo ago
  No it isn't. IT IS A WAY OUT. The west only accepts Iranian women with degrees (same for men, same for any other place for that matter, if they accept anyone at all, and for obvious reasons Russia is out, especially for men) In other words, yes, the islamic revolution is making women smarter. Men too, but not to the same degree. But in the worst way possible. By putting a gun to their head and torturing them non-stop, then effectively letting the smartest 5% out. Yes regime apologists want to call that "making women smarter" because "torturing women", what islam actually does, sounds ... unlikely to gather support for stopping the war and it's not like they care about these women.

lurkercodemnky 8mo ago

[flagged]

echelon 8mo ago
Can't people decide for themselves what matters? Life is a short few trips around the sun, then eternal annihilation. If you really want to ascribe "value" to it: prosperity tends to create chill attitudes. You see this in individuals (nepotism) and in societies. It's just evolutionary economics: genes, ideas, species spend in times of plenty, save in times of drought.
- lurkercodemnky 8mo ago
  Is that the excuse for the life of online dating apps and only fans? You're destroying the society which your "conservative" "backward" forefathers built.
  - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
    > You're destroying the society which your "conservative" "backward" forefathers built. “The dead should not rule the living" —- Thomas Jefferson
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> maybe you shouldn't be lecturing "patriarchal backward societies"? It's perfectly fair to criticize modern Iran. Particularly when it comes to mis-allocating its skilled population and history. Look at it from the perspective of fitness: if Iran had let these women study and work freely, and had invested its resources in growing its economy instead of a dud of a nuclear programme, might it–not Israel–be the region's hegemon? > That's why developing countries have many STEM graduates Number of scientists and engineers per capita is directly propotional to GDP per capita [1]. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-vs-number-of-scientists-and-engineers-per-million-people_fig2_358835259 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-vs-number...
- 8mo ago

wanderlust123 8mo ago

Except what you are saying doesn’t really make sense and is implicitly sexist. You are assuming women in those countries don’t enjoy studying these subjects. Also, to pursue a hard STEM degree or phd would detract from being a housewife, so no “oppressive” husband would allow that in the first place. Ergo the women pursuing these paths are not oppressed in the first place.

Dylan16807 8mo ago
> You are assuming women in those countries don’t enjoy studying these subjects. It does not assume that. Even with equal enjoyment of multiple subjects, there's a lot of other factors that affect what you study. And you can enjoy subjects that aren't your favorite. > Also, to pursue a hard STEM degree or phd would detract from being a housewife, so no “oppressive” husband would allow that in the first place. Ergo the women pursuing these paths are not oppressed in the first place. What percent of the women in these programs are already married? That counterargument only applies to women that currently have husbands, not women worried about future husbands.
- wanderlust123 8mo ago
  It absolutely does assume that. There is an implicit assumption in their argument that women are doing something they don’t want to due to “oppression”. The percent of women being married is irrelevant. Women can be oppressed even if they are not married due to societal expectations. If a single woman is expected not to pursue education and simply become a housewife, then it’s irrelevant whether she is married or not. She is oppressed. However, that is literally a contradiction because STEM education shows high representation of women in Iran. Honestly there are a lot of people here asserting what they think are facts who don’t have the slightest idea how the world works outside their own city, let alone country. I would encourage some critical thinking when it comes to stuff like this.
  - Tarsul 8mo ago
    I have an anecdata where it was true: Angela Merkel. She studied physics not because it was her favorite but because in the system that she lived (GDR) it made more sense than social studies or politics.

huddert 8mo ago

[flagged]