Feminism Thread

[RKenshin]

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?

In a vacuum, perhaps that would be the result.

But we're not in one, and the US certainly isn't a place where you can just do what you truly want/love to do and everything else will work itself out. It's a very competitive atmosphere and job market, and needless to say most people don't get to do the job they actually want - and instead are steered towards a job closer to satisfying what they need (income/success/etc).

If we all lived in some socialist utopia where choosing a job/career had no effect on your income, means, living situation, how you're judged/treated/viewed, etc, I would bet money on gender-roles still existing. Do you really believe that every job would be 50/50 male/female across the board? From lawyers, to social workers, to nurses, to military, to stem?


__________________
EDIT: Reading your latest post seems to indicate you agree with my last paragraph, but you just feel as though sexism is 'rampant' and a major influence in the current state of affairs. I agree that it exists and again agree that it needs to be fixed/addressed, and also agree that acting like the low representation of women in STEM isn't at least partially do to that is ridiculous... but I don't agree on it being 'rampant.'

Interestingly enough, the unemployment rate of women vs men with an education in STEM is actually also lower for women.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press.../cb14-130.html

So what is being implied with ‘sexism is rampant’ here? Because women that ultimately pursue the field are getting hired (and more often than men).

So to me, that means that you would have to believe that the sexism is in the way they’re raised and the educational system… which to me, comes down to a different topic than the popular implication that it’s the workplaces that are causing the main issues here.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I think archi's point is thus: It doesn't matter how well we're doing; we're not done yet, so we shouldn't stop yet.

I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it. Thought perhaps my simplistic interpretation might be of use. Carry on, continue to be civil, etc.

[wipers]

In a vacuum, perhaps that would be the result.

But we're not in one, and the US certainly isn't a place where you can just do what you truly want/love to do and everything else will work itself out. It's a very competitive atmosphere and job market, and needless to say most people don't get to do the job they actually want - and instead are steered towards a job closer to satisfying what they need (income/success/etc).

If we all lived in some socialist utopia where choosing a job/career had no effect on your income, means, living situation, how you're judged/treated/viewed, etc, I would bet money on gender-roles still existing. Do you really believe that every job would be 50/50 male/female across the board? From lawyers, to social workers, to nurses, to military, to stem?


__________________
EDIT: Reading your latest post seems to indicate you agree with my last paragraph, but you just feel as though sexism is 'rampant' and a major influence in the current state of affairs. I agree that it exists and again agree that it needs to be fixed/addressed, and also agree that acting like the low representation of women in STEM isn't at least partially do to that is ridiculous... but I don't agree on it being 'rampant.'

Interestingly enough, the unemployment rate of women vs men with an education in STEM is actually also lower for women.
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press.../cb14-130.html

So what is being implied with ‘sexism is rampant’ here? Because women that ultimately pursue the field are getting hired (and more often than men).

So to me, that means that you would have to believe that the sexism is in the way they’re raised and the educational system… which to me, comes down to a different topic than the popular implication that it’s the workplaces that are causing the main issues here.

Well comparing men and women is unequal from the very start. So trying to make things equal is going to be impossible. You have to accept we are different as much as feminism wants us all to be the same.

I don't see a day when feminism go there we are finally equal it is a endless "fight" Since equality isn't something that has a clear line of demarcation.

[archibaldcrane]

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.

Sorry, no. That's not how this works. Sexism exists now, sexism existed much more in the past. Women barely gained the right to vote 100 years ago. They were barely represented at all in virtually all high-paying jobs 50 years ago. Their participation rates have only increased from there - and I don't think women's DNA has changed much in that time. What has changed is sexism/patriarchy/whatever you want to call it changing, expanding the opportunities for women both at the hiring/promotion stage and at the "it's ok for women to learn math!" stage. Nothing I just said is controversial in the slightest. But if you want to argue that sexism is over - THAT is the extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that women are not experiencing gender-based discouragement from pursuing high paying jobs.

But eventually you'll have to actually listen to women (who experience the sexism all of us men are discussing). Can you find, say, a survey where very few women report experiencing workplace discrimination? I'm trying to help you out here on your quest to prove your extraordinary claim that sexism is over.

[Koul]

He isn't arguing that sexism is over nor did he say that. He's saying the burden of proof that sexism is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE reason why woman are discouraged from STEM fields is on you to prove that. And as shitty as it is, the logic of "well, a bunch of lady friends told me" isn't really good enough. He wants statistical data proving that claim.

[hey]

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?

The idea is to stop discouraging women from entering these fields, as we currently do, not to push them to do things they don't want to.

[archibaldcrane]

He isn't arguing that sexism is over nor did he say that. He's saying the burden of proof that sexism is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE reason why woman are discouraged from STEM fields is on you to prove that. And as shitty as it is, the logic of "well, a bunch of lady friends told me" isn't really good enough. He wants statistical data proving that claim.

He's going to have to ask someone arguing that sexism is the only reason then.

[archibaldcrane]

Go on.

Income inequality is flat for individuals in the US, rising for households.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g3WZGpDibP...-1947-2012.png

[Byrthnoth]

Hmm...

So there's the same disparity between individuals, but rich people are marrying each other more often?

[Andalusian girls]

i would think the fracturing of families is a more significant factor, far more single-parent households than there ever have been and their poverty rates are sky-high relative to their cohabitating counterparts

to wit in 1970 there were only 3.8 million single parent households, today there are something like 15 million, with the effect particularly pronounced among minority communities; over half of all African-Americans in the nation are being brought up in a single-mother household.

[Priran]

so we need to promote women in tech, women CEOs, women in engineering, women in science, women in medicine

when do women start lobbying for equal representation in HVAC installation and repair

or animal control

or alaskan crab fishing

or anything else that isn't safe, glamorous, and well-paid

[RKenshin]

Just to be clear, Archi, by "inequality is only increasing" you're referring to general income equality between rich/poor in America? Not income equality between male/female?

I'm assuming that truepanda intepretted it as the latter, because yeah I thought most people agree with/know the former at this point.

[Gredival]

You have to accept we are different as much as feminism wants us all to be the same.

I don't see a day when feminism go there we are finally equal it is a endless "fight" Since equality isn't something that has a clear line of demarcation.

Feminism isn't about being ignorant of the differences between men and women; it's about equality of rights. But getting to the point where the different sexes enjoy equal freedoms in society requires different treatment. For example, health care and birth control. Because women biologically bear an unequal burden when it comes to child birth, ensuring that both sexes have an equal right to health care and the right to engage in free consensual sexual intercourse requires that women receive objectively more medical coverage (including birth control support).

The issue of women in STEM isn't about getting to 50/50, it's about getting to whatever the natural alignment would be without the additional pressures in society that push girls away from STEM.

The reason why feminism is an endless fight is the same reason the fight against discrimination against any other type of protected class seems endless - because discrimination perpetuates itself, especially in small pockets, as part of a living culture. Insofar as humans are naturally self-serving creatures, the phenomena of our cultures being interested in protecting the rights of our minorities is a relatively novel concept in human history. So of course we've got a long road to travel.

[NynJa]

The issue of women in STEM isn't about getting to 50/50, it's about getting to whatever the natural alignment would be without the additional pressures in society that push girls away from STEM.

What if there isnt anything pushing girls away, what if these girls are just not interested and prefer to pursue careers they're more interested in?

http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previ...ustration.jpeg


Dont get me wrong, I'm sure there are some things that do inevitably push girls away (ie: 20 males in a class, and 1 female, its kinda intimidating), but the plan to toss money to "give women better education in this field" isnt the answer. You've opened a couple doors at the end of the line, and leaving a bunch of the initial doors locked.

[hey]

What if there isnt anything pushing girls away, what if these girls are just not interested and prefer to pursue careers they're more interested in?

That would be totally fine, but it's not the case.

[kareface]

It's possible but unlikely. There are plenty of examples of countries where women are split with men in classes for most of the stem major. One thing I would point out though, even though there are very few women in the undergradute programs I've been in, the grad program at Berkeley actually has at least 30% female (if not closer to 40%+) in the theory department. The group I'm with has 3 women out of the ~10 in the group.

[BerenTebogo]

My PhD class in Physics is pretty much 50% women as well, but they are horribly underrepresented in theory and computational physics programs here.

The only theory they are in is Astro as far as I can tell. Almost completely devoid of women in the computational programs.

My girlfriend is a Master's student in Applied Math though. 2-3/11ish people in her program are women.

It's definitely not all STEM where they are underrepresented. Tech really seems to bring it out hardcore.

[wipers]

Who are the evil white men that are preventing women from getting Science and Engineering degrees again ?

[Byrthnoth]

I just went through the graduate student registry for my neuroscience program. We have 73 students: 37 girls and 36 boys.

I tried to look up my wife's department's gender split, but I couldn't figure it out because there are no pictures and half of the names are asian (chemical engineering).

Edit: Screw it. I'll just make another post.

[BerenTebogo]

To be fair, the class above mine in my program, the 2nd years, have like <15% females I believe.

Don't know if it dropped from their enrollment or not.