Feminism Thread

[Jefe]

I'm just throwing this shit out there:

Whilst I was majoring in computer engineering the whole fucking place was a sausage fest. It was rare to see a chick. I asked a friend who attended USC and he saw a couple more chicks, but the vast majority were Indian or Chinese. The girl I'm dating is an attorney (graduated in Mexico). One day I was fucking around w/ my camera and I was explaining the basic stuff, iso, f stops, and what-not; and she was super interested. When I gave her the camera it was like watching a girl playing w/ a doll, but instead it was an expensive camera. She then tells me she loves photography. I asked her why not photography, why law? 'I wouldn't be able to support my family,' she answered. Anyway, it's a big fucking burden she has to drag around. Oh yeah, watch that video posted a page or two ago.

[Jefe]

And yes. She takes better pics than me.

[wipers]

So what or who is stopping women from getting a STEM degree I have yet to hear an answer ?

[Byrthnoth]

Well, I don't know. They are apparently getting degrees, and it's possible that they're more successful than their male counterparts, but there does seem to be a deficiency in the application rate to STEM programs:

Spoiler: show

http://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles...eport_2013.pdf

Keep in mind that bachelor degrees are required for most/all graduate programs and 71% of female high school graduates continue on to college while only 61% of males do (Pew Research Group, so you would expect a 54:46 female:male ratio on campus).

So...
Gender Neutral - Business, Bio/Ag (this is where I am probably)
Favors Men - Engineering, Math&Computer Sci, Physical & Earth Sci. (slightly)
Favors Women - Other, Social&Behavioral Sci., Public Admin. & Svcs., Health Sciences, Education, Arts & Humanities

Application rates mimic the statistics we'd expect of the college graduating classes, but women are more likely to graduate than men to such an extent that it almost evens out the gender disparity in Physical and Earth Sciences.

Moving on to doctoral graduations, we see that men are more likely to continue on for a Doctoral degree in almost every case. It could be that women are being sexism'd into quitting with a Master's degree, but we have no real evidence that their decision to stop at a master's degree is involuntary. Regardless, the 3 groups that favor men favor men even more strongly in the doctoral group, and some of the groups that previously favored women now show gender parity.

[Blubbartron]

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.

Social evolution is not biological evolution. Radical change can happen in just 1 or 2 generations. 100 years is roughly 4 generations. Just wanted to clear up that misconception right from the get go.

Here's the way I look at it - we have more women working in STEM than a place with objectively more gender equality than us (Norway). If more gender equality and better living circumstances leads to fewer women in STEM, then it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion that one or both of those things are worse for us than they are for Norway. You seem to be suggesting that gender equality is where we're lacking. That sexism is actively causing women to opt out of STEM fields. What makes you think that gender equality is the primary issue in the equation? What studies have been done?

I tried doing some research to back up your claim that gender discrimination is a cause (or even prevalent in the workplace) for the current male/female ratio, but all I keep finding is stuff like the following: http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/19/2468.html This isn't evidence, for the record. It's a survey asking women what they believe. "Do you believe women are discriminated against?" "Do you believe women are paid the same as men?" These questions are completely wrong for trying to determine if there is in fact gender discrimination. They need to be more personal to take beliefs about the whole out of the equation. I.e. "have you ever been discriminated against because you're a woman? If yes, explain." etc.

For what it's worth, I think that sexism COULD be a factor, possibly, but that it's currently unlikely given the other information I have at hand. We seemingly have more women in STEM than would naturally be interested in a position (if you take away the financial aspect of them), and we have tons of people along the way throwing money at the problem actively encouraging women to go into STEM. We have STEM-related toys actively marketed to girls. There are ridiculous amounts of scholarship opportunities and mentorships specifically for women interested in STEM. There's more evidence that we're helping women every step of the way than there is evidence that we're discouraging them. A sexist view in the past does not automatically mean that any differences can be attributed immediately to sexism. You still need to study it and make the claim that the difference we're seeing now, despite everything we do to try to "fix" it, is because of sexism.

[Koul]

So what or who is stopping women from getting a STEM degree I have yet to hear an answer ?

[Galkaeater]

So what or who is stopping women from getting a STEM degree I have yet to hear an answer ?

Dongle jokes clearly

[Gredival]

So what or who is stopping women from getting a STEM degree I have yet to hear an answer ?

Really? Because that's been the point of discussion for a good five pages. One of the big ones is how traditional gender stereotypes push young girls into "girl suitable" non-STEM activities and toys. Darus, someone who is saying that he thinks blatant sexism is a relatively small factor based on his experience in the industry, has put forth the proposition that religion is factor (which, for the sake of this discussion, is basically a substitute for anti-science)

If you really want to participate in a dialogue, then stop trying to simplify the other side into claiming "evil white men are preventing women from getting Science and Engineering degrees" so that you can belittle and dismiss their opposing viewpoint.

No one is claiming 50/50 is the goal and that the absence of a perfect split is demonstrative of some repressive patriarchal privilege. Likewise, no one is saying women are exactly the same as men.

[Blubbartron]

No one is claiming 50/50 is the goal and that the absence of a perfect split is demonstrative of some repressive patriarchal privilege. Likewise, no one is saying women are exactly the same as men.

You seriously could've fooled me. That seems pretty damn close to exactly what Archi and hey have been saying. "Discouraged every step of the way" and whatnot.

[Gredival]

You seriously could've fooled me. That seems pretty damn close to exactly what Archi and hey have been saying. "Discouraged every step of the way" and whatnot.

Really?

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.

[hey]

You seriously could've fooled me. That seems pretty damn close to exactly what Archi and hey have been saying. "Discouraged every step of the way" and whatnot.

Discouraged doesn't necessarily mean people are literally preventing them from doing it, or even telling them not to. Simple things like buying little boys legos, and girls dolls can discourage them from going into sciences, and engineering, because they don't develop an interest in it early on as much as boys do.

[NynJa]

How many girls grew up with barbie dolls that grew up to be 90 pound blondes with DD cup tits and david hasselhoff (in his prime) as their husband?

[wipers]

How many girls grew up with barbie dolls that grew up to be 90 pound blondes with DD cup tits and david hasselhoff (in his prime) as their husband?

A lot.

[Blubbartron]

Really?

Well the current gender gap is 26/74, so if he thinks we're not yet to the point of the natural gap, then we can't go very fucking far before we hit 50/50. Unless he's suggesting that men aren't naturally attracted to STEM fields and that women should dominate those fields.

Regardless, it's still fun seeing that quote where he somehow manages to simultaneously hold the idea that a natural gender gap can exist, but that the best explanation for the current gap is sexism. All sorts of non sequitur up in this bitch.

[hey]

Regardless, it's still fun seeing that quote where he somehow manages to simultaneously hold the idea that a natural gender gap can exist, but that the best explanation for the current gap is sexism. All sorts of non sequitur up in this bitch.

Huh? If the natural gap is somewhere around 60/40, but it's currently 75/25, that's a pretty big problem. Just because differences in genders can explain some of the difference, doesn't mean it can explain all of it.

[wipers]

Well the current gender gap is 26/74, so if he thinks we're not yet to the point of the natural gap, then we can't go very fucking far before we hit 50/50. Unless he's suggesting that men aren't naturally attracted to STEM fields and that women should dominate those fields.

Regardless, it's still fun seeing that quote where he somehow manages to simultaneously hold the idea that a natural gender gap can exist, but that the best explanation for the current gap is sexism. All sorts of non sequitur up in this bitch.

Thank you for the actual information not a condescending rebuttal...

[Blubbartron]

Discouraged doesn't necessarily mean people are literally preventing them from doing it, or even telling them not to. Simple things like buying little boys legos, and girls dolls can discourage them from going into sciences, and engineering, because they don't develop an interest in it early on as much as boys do.

Uh, no, that's not how language works. Discouraged is a verb, which in this context, means people are actively doing something that is encouraging them NOT to go into STEM fields. What you're trying to do is equate not-encouraging with discouraging. Stop that.

Also, watch the video that was posted. A study was done on what draws the attention of one day old babies, and the presence of testosterone was the highest determining factor for whether the baby would look longer at a picture of a "thing" vs. a picture of a "person". Females, generally having lower testosterone levels, overwhelmingly looked at the "person" picture longer. It's possible to develop interests in things, but most interests are simply innate. Thanks evolution.

[Byrthnoth]

Well, you have about 20 years lag time on any manipulation you make to society. The bar graphs I posted indicate something closer to a 35:65 female:male gender gap post-graduate degrees if you combine the 3 worst groups, which I assume would be considered STEM. They're ~75:25 female:male if you combine the 3 worst groups for female:male ratio.

I've felt that the Atlantic has been slipping in recent months, but this article is still pretty good:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...me-dad/384289/

[Blubbartron]

Huh? If the natural gap is somewhere around 60/40, but it's currently 75/25, that's a pretty big problem. Just because differences in genders can explain some of the difference, doesn't mean it can explain all of it.

The thing is, based on Norway's paradox, the natural gap is somewhere around 10/90 to 20/80. Meaning we have more women than the natural gap suggests we should. As discussed now several times before, the most plausible explanation for this is money. Women want to support themselves and their family, and thus choose a well-paying field over a field that may make them happier.

[Gredival]

Well the current gender gap is 26/74, so if he thinks we're not yet to the point of the natural gap, then we can't go very fucking far before we hit 50/50. Unless he's suggesting that men aren't naturally attracted to STEM fields and that women should dominate those fields.

Regardless, it's still fun seeing that quote where he somehow manages to simultaneously hold the idea that a natural gender gap can exist, but that the best explanation for the current gap is sexism. All sorts of non sequitur up in this bitch.

If the natural gap is 40/60 that still leaves lots of room for improvement without forcing a 50/50. I don't know about you but I think a 15 point shift is a big deal; that's a far greater margin than most elections are won on.

The thing is, based on Norway's paradox, the natural gap is somewhere around 10/90 to 20/80. Meaning we have more women than the natural gap suggests we should. As discussed now several times before, the most plausible explanation for this is money. Women want to support themselves and their family, and thus choose a well-paying field over a field that may make them happier.

That's based on an interpretation that Norway indicates the natural gap should be higher. That's a point in contention. It's open for debate but you can't just merely presume that Norway represents a more accurate norm.