Feminism Thread

[Galkaeater]

Us/Norway etc etc also have the education system that supports those choices with better access to the arts and humanities.

[archibaldcrane]

If more ability to choose means people settle more into gender role-jobs, isn't it odd that women continue to make headway into male-dominated occupations more and more the further we are removed from "women who go to college can only be nurses or teachers"?

At what point does this "no further gains possible" exist? Do we really believe that this moment in history is that point, here in the US?

[Andalusian girls]

I would prefer this.



I have already watched your video a long time ago, but i also learned a long time ago there is no reason to go full elvis mode with giant intelligent well sourced posts colorcoded for idiots because no one cares enough to read it. BG conversations = conjecture in any thread that lasts more than 5 pages here.

yes but have u considered the possibility that you are simply too gay to have a conversation with

[GoggleHead]

If more ability to choose means people settle more into gender role-jobs, isn't it odd that women continue to make headway into male-dominated occupations more and more the further we are removed from "women who go to college can only be nurses or teachers"?

At what point does this "no further gains possible" exist? Do we really believe that this moment in history is that point, here in the US?

Probably not, but I am quite sure we will refuse to recognize that moment whenever it happens to arrive and the people who try to tell us will be shouted down as heretics.

[Blubbartron]

If more ability to choose means people settle more into gender role-jobs, isn't it odd that women continue to make headway into male-dominated occupations more and more the further we are removed from "women who go to college can only be nurses or teachers"?

At what point does this "no further gains possible" exist? Do we really believe that this moment in history is that point, here in the US?

We in the U.S. actually have less freedom to choose than the average person in Norway. Between wealth inequality and the lack of good (free) education, we're closer to a place like India than we are to a place like Norway. You're looking at these numbers going "they're so low, but they're still growing" as if that's a good thing. In reality it more likely means that our average person is worse off today than they would've been 30 years ago.

Norway experienced upticks in the number of women going into STEM fields by throwing money at the problem as well, but they were small upticks and short-lived.

[thetruepandagod]

yes but have u considered the possibility that you are simply too gay to have a conversation with

Every day in my mind when i talk with self.

[Andalusian girls]

wanna make out

[Psion]

At the chemistry lab I work at, it's almost all people from vietnam/china, due to nearby Little Saigon. about 95% of the people there are from there. Interestingly enough, there's almost no gender gap whatsoever. If anything we seem to have a few more females than males. So yeah, more anecdotal evidence for asian countries doing better at the whole gender gap thing.

[NynJa]

How come its not "American women just dont seem to give a fuck about the tech industry" instead of "EU/Asia are doing a good job with the gender gap"?

[Mazmaz]

Because "women gonna women" isn't a great argument?

[Blubbartron]

Because "women gonna women" isn't a great argument?

What's wrong with acknowledging differences between people? If the reality is that people are different, then we should be accepting of that.

[Mazmaz]

I know how this argument loop is gonna go. I'm gonna mention something about "women gonna women" being comparable to saying blacks are less intelligent than whites, then you're gonna say "but blacks ARE less intelligent than whites because DIFFERENCES", and then test123 is gonna come in here with some bullshit graphic, and then we move on.

[Mazmaz]

something something testosterone something something

[NynJa]

Because "women gonna women" isn't a great argument?

So basically what you're saying is it could be true, and you just refuse to believe it, because you dont believe such a thing could be true, that there are less women in the tech industry in north america, not because of sexism or patriarchy or intelligence difference or anything else, but because they just dont give a fuck to pursue that profession.

Dont they have a name for people like that?

[thetruepandagod]

wanna make out

Yes.

[Gredival]

How come its not "American women just dont seem to give a fuck about the tech industry" instead of "EU/Asia are doing a good job with the gender gap"?

Because the latter is an indication that the former may not be a natural state of affairs.

[archibaldcrane]

Because the latter is an indication that the former may not be a natural state of affairs.

^

It's not impossible that a "natural gender gap" will exist in the absence of sexism, in fact, it's assured industry by industry. Statisticians in baseball will call this effect "splits happen".

However we aren't close to achieving an "absence of sexism", so it's wildly premature to look at the theoretical endgame here. As pointed out earlier, the US is hardly an egalitarian society, and inequality is only increasing. It's important for women to not be discouraged from high-paying fields throughout life because of their gender, and it's important for high-paying fields not to write off half the population as "uninterested in this type of work" because of sexism thinning their ranks at every level.

[Blubbartron]

^

It's not impossible that a "natural gender gap" will exist in the absence of sexism, in fact, it's assured industry by industry. Statisticians in baseball will call this effect "splits happen".

However we aren't close to achieving an "absence of sexism", so it's wildly premature to look at the theoretical endgame here. As pointed out earlier, the US is hardly an egalitarian society, and inequality is only increasing. It's important for women to not be discouraged from high-paying fields throughout life because of their gender, and it's important for high-paying fields not to write off half the population as "uninterested in this type of work" because of sexism thinning their ranks at every level.

I like how you keep saying that sexism is thinning the ranks at every level without providing any kind of evidence that makes that explanation more plausible than the explanation provided by the slew of studies discussed in that video. You do realize that we currently have more women in STEM fields than Norway does, yes? More graduates with STEM degrees as well.

If you're going to keep spewing this nonsense that women are actively being discouraged from high-paying fields PURELY BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER, then you need to back that shit up. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Lastly, no one is suggesting that we write off women as uninterested and not give them a chance. All that should be done is that no one should be treated as special for the purposes of hiring. If they're interested, and they've got the knowledge and skills to beat the other applicants, then kudos to them.

[thetruepandagod]

and inequality is only increasing.

Go on.

[Darus Grey]

^

It's not impossible that a "natural gender gap" will exist in the absence of sexism, in fact, it's assured industry by industry. Statisticians in baseball will call this effect "splits happen".

However we aren't close to achieving an "absence of sexism", so it's wildly premature to look at the theoretical endgame here. As pointed out earlier, the US is hardly an egalitarian society, and inequality is only increasing. It's important for women to not be discouraged from high-paying fields throughout life because of their gender, and it's important for high-paying fields not to write off half the population as "uninterested in this type of work" because of sexism thinning their ranks at every level.

If we don't know what the natural gender gap is(and going by all available evidence, it appears there *is* one), then speculating about "gains" is pretty much worthless. Who defines "gains"? what is the "goal"? etc.

You youself say that due to inequality that it's important that women not be discouraged from high-paying fields. *important to who?*...to you? to society?

I actually don't disagree(obviously) that it's beneficial to society for women to actively pursue high paying careers. But is it beneficial to those women to unwillingly pursue those careers? *We* want women in these careers, and will "educate" them, cajole them, offer incentives, even shame them, to get them to pursue them. How is this not sexism?

And to what end? So we can feel good about some imaginary goal?

It's ridiculous.

We should strive for a society where anyone, regardless of gender or race, or whatever, is free to choose their path(for better or worse). That they have the education, resources, and opportunity to pursue that path in an informed manner, and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else is forcing our will on them. That is to say, make sure the playing field is as fair as it can be, but let's not force these arbitrary goals.

From my perspective, Sexism is clearly not the biggest factor at play here. It's likely financial incentive. Women(and certainly men), pursue higher paying careers when access to them is easy and the gains to be made(making 2k a year vs 40k a year) has a significant life impact, they are sacrificing their will in exchange for stability(their choice). However in more prosperous nations, where the standard of living is higher, we see the reverse trend. The lifestyle difference between 40k and 100k is big, but no where near the difference of the former, the incentive is lower, and in these situations, people's natural desires take more prescience than their pursuit of fiscal stability. Why is that bad?

The fact that the USA does slightly better than Norway is a big indicator of this, because we have so much inequality, because we have so much poverty, women are more inclined to pursue STEM careers for stability.

Why on earth should we encourage and celebrate monetary inequality?

(All that said, I'd still love to test my hypothesis on wester vs eastern cultures and the link science-phobic religion plays...seriously grant monies plz.)

Edit: And just to be clear, we agree Archi that Sexism is a problem in some spheres of society(for all sexes) and needs to be addressed. But having been on the front-lines of this particular issue for a long time, I genuinely don't believe that sexism is the biggest contributing factor to the gender gap in STEM. If we removed sexism tomorrow, we'd still have this "problem".