TheAtlantic article: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM

#1
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...nder-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

Though their numbers are growing, only 27 percent of all students taking the AP Computer Science exam in the United States are female. The gender gap only grows worse from there: Just 18 percent of American computer-science college degrees go to women. This is in the United States, where many college men proudly describe themselves as “male feminists” and girls are taught they can be anything they want to be.

Meanwhile, in Algeria, 41 percent of college graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math—or “STEM,” as its known—are female. There, employment discrimination against women is rife and women are often pressuredto make amends with their abusive husbands.

According to a report I covered a few years ago, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates were the only three countries in which boys are significantly less likely to feel comfortable working on math problems than girls are. In all of the other nations surveyed, girls were more likely to say they feel “helpless while performing a math problem.”

So what explains the tendency for nations that have traditionally less gender equality to have more women in science and technology than their gender-progressive counterparts do?

A scatterplot of countries based on their number of female STEM graduates and their Global Gender Gap Index (y-axis), a measure of opportunities for women (Psychological Science)
According to a new paper published in Psychological Science by the psychologists Gijsbert Stoet, at Leeds Beckett University, and David Geary, at the University of Missouri, it could have to do with the fact that women in countries with higher gender inequality are simply seeking the clearest possible path to financial freedom. And often, that path leads through STEM professions.

The issue doesn’t appear to be girls’ aptitude for STEM professions. In looking at test scores across 67 countries and regions, Stoet and Geary found that girls performed about as well or better than boys did on science in most countries, and in almost all countries, girls would have been capable of college-level science and math classes if they had enrolled in them.

But when it comes to their relative strengths, in almost all the countries—all except Romania and Lebanon—boys’ best subject was science, and girls’ was reading. (That is, even if an average girl was as good as an average boy at science, she was still likely to be even better at reading.) Across all countries, 24 percent of girls had science as their best subject, 25 percent of girls’ strength was math, and 51 percent excelled in reading. For boys, the percentages were 38 for science, 42 for math, and 20 for reading. And the more gender-equal the country, as measured by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, the larger this gap between boys and girls in having science as their best subject. (The most gender-equal countries are the typical snowy utopias you hear about, like Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Turkey and the United Arab Emirates rank among the least equal, according to the Global Gender Gap Index.)

The gap in reading “is related at least in part to girls’ advantages in basic language abilities and a generally greater interest in reading; they read more and thus practice more,” Geary told me.

What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at.

“Countries with the highest gender equality tend to be welfare states,” they write, “with a high level of social security.” Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose STEM professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing.

When the study authors looked at the “overall life satisfaction” rating of each country—a measure of economic opportunity and hardship—they found that gender-equal countries had more life satisfaction. The life-satisfaction ranking explained 35 percent of the variation between gender equality and women’s participation in STEM. That correlation echoes past research showing that the genders are actually more segregated by field of study in more economically developed places.

The upshot of this research is neither especially feminist nor especially sad: It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested.

The findings will likely seem controversial, since the idea that men and women have different inherent abilities is often used as a reason, by some, to argue we should forget trying to recruit more women into the STEM fields. But, as the University of Wisconsin gender-studies professor Janet Shibley Hyde, who wasn’t involved with the study, put it to me, that’s not quite what’s happening here.


“Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less.”

Instead, this line of research, if it’s replicated, might hold useful takeaways for people who do want to see more Western women entering STEM fields. In this study, the percentage of girls who did excel in science or math was still larger than the number of women who were graduating with STEM degrees. That means there’s something in even the most liberal societies that’s nudging women away from math and science, even when those are their best subjects. The women-in-STEM advocates could, for starters, focus their efforts on those would-be STEM stars.

Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science.


This is the same exact conclusion the Gender Equality Paradox, a great Norwegian documentary reached many years ago, I highly recommend watching it, it shows how the gender studies pseudo-intellectuals were passionately denying science throughout the documentary and thus creating an endless loop of manufactured "oppression" because the more equal society becomes the more "unequal" it is according to them so they have more things to complain about and "fix". You can watch it here, it's only 40 minutes and it's doing a great job supporting its thesis:



Btw it's the same subject Damore was fired about from Google, that was pretty much his pov. Shows how much anti-science crazies have taken over many organizations and how sanctioned that anti-science behavior is by the status quo.
 
Last edited:

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
#2
Unfotunately the counter arguments boil down to nothing but unquantifiable rhetoric and circular logic under the presupposition of patriarchal dominance colluding to keep women down.

Apparently when given the absolute freest of choices, it's unacceptable for women to fall into "gender rolls" because gender isn't a thing apparently and therefore must be forced through "encouragement" to undertake work and employment they aren't all that interested in.

Equality through oppression of freewill and thought.

Oh, but remember it's only for the desirable jobs, never mind the men being constantly hit with the harder end of the stick to the point of more than 90% of work related deaths are men. We can't fight that inequality now can we :rolleyes:
 
#3
Unfotunately the counter arguments boil down to nothing but unquantifiable rhetoric and circular logic under the presupposition of patriarchal dominance colluding to keep women down.

Apparently when given the absolute freest of choices, it's unacceptable for women to fall into "gender rolls" because gender isn't a thing apparently and therefore must be forced through "encouragement" to undertake work and employment they aren't all that interested in.

Equality through oppression of freewill and thought.

Oh, but remember it's only for the desirable jobs, never mind the men being constantly hit with the harder end of the stick to the point of more than 90% of work related deaths are men. We can't fight that inequality now can we :rolleyes:

I was always wondering, if gender isn't a thing don't these geniuses agree with the conservatives of 2000's that were saying being gay is a "lifestyle choice" you can change? These ideologues often start from a ridiculous position so they eventually corner themselves and they have nowhere else to go but deny science.
 
#4
Saw this on twitter:

Here is my theory before reading the article:
In countries with less gender equality women need very clear, measurable results of their achievements - to fight gender biases and preconceived notions. This goal is more easily accomplished in STEM professions. (Edith Mandel)

I don't know if this is true but it seems reasonable.
 
#5
I was always wondering, if gender isn't a thing don't these geniuses agree with the conservatives of 2000's that were saying being gay is a "lifestyle choice" you can change? These ideologues often start from a ridiculous position so they eventually corner themselves and they have nowhere else to go but deny science.
Homosexuality has biological origin factors. Gender does not (you might be thinking of sex).
 
#6
To be honest I'm not sure the documentary by the Norwegian guy covered anything I thought was new; studies showing even before cultural influence hormonal differences being a large factor in gender bias. From an evolutionary point of view it would make perfect sense, not everyone would be programmed to be put themselves in harms way, you would always need people pre-disposed to nurture.

If STEM wasn't a particularly high paying field, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The need for equality of representation in STEM has little to do with equality at a social level and more to do with the gender pay gap.
 
Last edited:
#7
What's interesting is that in Arab nations women have higher rates of STEM in college, but have lower rates (than in the west) of women working in those jobs. In Algeria (free education woo) they have a funneling system for education. Test scores determine what type of university you go to and it's hard to change after you get in, similar to Iran, Jordan and others. Some of the countries at the top have track systems with set specializations to choose from (which is no stranger to some European countries) or have the funnel system. But I was surprised that some of the percentages weren't as big in differene as I assumed.
 
Last edited:
#9
To be honest I'm not sure the documentary by the Norwegian guy covered anything I thought was new; studies showing even before cultural influence hormonal differences being a large factor in gender bias. From an evolutionary point of view it would make perfect sense, not everyone would be programmed to be put themselves in harms way, you would always need people pre-disposed to nurture.

If STEM wasn't a particularly high paying field, this wouldn't even be a discussion. The need for equality of representation in STEM has little to do with equality at a social level and more to do with the gender pay gap.

The documentary was part of a series that was exposing irrational or anti-science social norms or emerging trends. This one mostly focuses on the complete and utter incompetence and denial of gender studies feminists to accept scientific facts and the fact that these people dictate national policy which is non-nonsensical and kind scary if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
#10
Doesn't sex only describe male or female based on genitalia and chromosomes? Gender is the one that describes LGBT and so on.
That's pretty close. You're spot on about sex.

Gender generally refers to a range of characteristics that society has sort of collectively come up with that defines and differentiates "masculinity" and "feminity" (there are also folks that don't really fall on that binary spectrum, but I don't know much at all about what identifying as non-binary means).

It's essentially a mix of biological sex, social structures, and personal identity.

Sexual orientation (LGBT) is often related and comes up in the same discussion circles, but "lesbian" and "gay" aren't genders (for example, a gay biological male still could identify as either a man or a woman, just as a straight biological male could), and as I mentioned before, they have partly or fully biological origins while gender is purely a social construct.

(edited to fix my mistake re: trans)
 
Last edited:
#11
That's pretty close. You're spot on about sex.

Gender generally refers to a range of characteristics that society has sort of collectively come up with that defines and differentiates "masculinity" and "feminity" (there are also folks that don't really fall on that binary spectrum, but I don't know much at all about what identifying as non-binary means).

It's essentially a mix of biological sex, social structures, and personal identity.

Sexual orientation (LGBT) is often related and comes up in the same discussion circles, but "lesbian" and "gay" aren't genders (for example, a gay biological male still could identify as either a man or a woman, just as a straight biological male could), and as I mentioned before, they have partly or fully biological origins while gender is purely a social construct.
Yeah, you must be right, I thought sexual orientation was part of what we call gender (at least from an essentialist point of point of view) but your description sounds better tbh. It's a murky subject.
 
Last edited:
#12
That's pretty close. You're spot on about sex.

Gender generally refers to a range of characteristics that society has sort of collectively come up with that defines and differentiates "masculinity" and "feminity" (there are also folks that don't really fall on that binary spectrum, but I don't know much at all about what identifying as non-binary means).

It's essentially a mix of biological sex, social structures, and personal identity.

Sexual orientation (LGBT) is often related and comes up in the same discussion circles, but "lesbian" and "gay" aren't genders (for example, a gay biological male still could identify as either a man or a woman, just as a straight biological male could), and as I mentioned before, they have partly or fully biological origins while gender is purely a social construct.
(T)rans isn't a sexual orientation.
 
#13
The documentary was part of a series that was exposing irrational or anti-science social norms or emerging trends. This one mostly focuses on the complete and utter incompetence and denial of gender studies feminists to accept scientific facts and the fact that these people dictate national policy which is non-nonsensical and kind scary if you ask me.
Wasnt debating it, just pointing out I didnt think this sibject was particularly controversial, then I visited another forum and realised apparently it is supposed to be a controversial topic.

Watching people flip out because 'yeh but the science is weak' remarks are something else, despite the fact 'there is no difference in bias between gender' hinges on....I wouldnt like that to be true' based statements.
 
#14
Wasnt debating it, just pointing out I didnt think this sibject was particularly controversial, then I visited another forum and realised apparently it is supposed to be a controversial topic.

Watching people flip out because 'yeh but the science is weak' remarks are something else, despite the fact 'there is no difference in bias between gender' hinges on....I wouldnt like that to be true' based statements.

Oh, it's extremely controversial. The original thread about the doc had been locked here under the previous status quo for... reasons.
 
#16
In looking at test scores across 67 countries and regions, Stoet and Geary found that girls performed about as well or better than boys did on science in most countries
So, if girls usually perform as good or better than boys in stem, then we need to make reading much less attractive to make more of them passionate about science, for more progress. Let's only read war novels at school from now on.

Only half-joking. Of course the measure is stupid, but it is a waste if girls are better at stem that they prefer to do soft sciences instead.
 
#17
Only half-joking. Of course the measure is stupid, but it is a waste if girls are better at stem that they prefer to do soft sciences instead.
This is a fine method of thinking; provided you live under an authoritarian regime.

Thats the point. Given equal oppprtunity and the pursuit of study based on indiivdual preference, you wind up with a a paradox of what people 'think' they should be as opposed to what they want to be.

This study suggest that if you strip people of what they need, what they actually want is quite different.

Hence if you want equality, you will in fact end up with a result that doesnt reflect that.
 
#18
So, if girls usually perform as good or better than boys in stem, then we need to make reading much less attractive to make more of them passionate about science, for more progress. Let's only read war novels at school from now on.

Only half-joking. Of course the measure is stupid, but it is a waste if girls are better at stem that they prefer to do soft sciences instead.

OK keep an open mind here, I propose some kind of wearable electronic device like a bracelet (or a collar) that shocks women that read too much and men who do too much math. We need to achieve true equality any means necessary so sacrifices must be made.
 
Last edited:
#19
My argument was not coming from a the goal of more equality but more (scientific) progress. And of course, it was a stupid proposition, as I said myself, it is just a sad thing for me that the seemingly more talented half of humanity prefers not to work on our scientific progress. But of course it is good that everyone can choose whatever one likes to as a profession.
 
#20
My argument was not coming from a the goal of more equality but more (scientific) progress. And of course, it was a stupid proposition, as I said myself, it is just a sad thing for me that the seemingly more talented half of humanity prefers not to work on our scientific progress. But of course it is good that everyone can choose whatever one likes to as a profession.

Just to clarify I wasn't making fun of you, I was making fun of the geniuses who pretty much want equality of outcome without ever admitting it of course. And imo we achieve true progress with merit based systems and usually the ones most qualified are the ones most passionate about something and you can't force that no matter what. The only thing we can do as a society is give people equal opportunities and then let them decide on their own. These ridiculous programs that are trying to force "equality" are only achieving two things: Mediocrity and unhappiness.
 
Last edited:
#21
Maybe this will get more attention than such an article normally would get. Das Gender equality Paradox is the answer to an issue many feminists do not understand to solve since they always talk about boys club unwelcoming culture for women etc. IT makes sense and is support by several studies around the world.
 
#22
I was always wondering, if gender isn't a thing don't these geniuses agree with the conservatives of 2000's that were saying being gay is a "lifestyle choice" you can change?
You are conflating gender and sexual orientation.
I mean, trans people and homosexuals are quite different, aren't they?


So, if girls usually perform as good or better than boys in stem, then we need to make reading much less attractive to make more of them passionate about science, for more progress. Let's only read war novels at school from now on.
I think there is an often missed yet very important nuance to it, hidden behind averages.
It isn't those who are at average points who choose STEM as professions.
And girls/boys achievement does not stay the same across all performance groups:

 
#23
This article is retarded and the posts in this thread are also retarded.

Yeah, so Middle Eastern countries do things some things better than us. Seems like their STEM educational culture is superior.

Or you can just make up non reasons, and idiotic unproved theories.
 
#24
Maybe this will get more attention than such an article normally would get. Das Gender equality Paradox is the answer to an issue many feminists do not understand to solve since they always talk about boys club unwelcoming culture for women etc. IT makes sense and is support by several studies around the world.
Well all of that unwelcoming culture stuff still exists and matters once women do start working (in the U.S.). College is important, but so is the work life after.

I do think these studies need to actually dive deeper though, it seems surface level. They should look at each leading system, and all Arab countries and break it down for us. Though much of that info is available with some research.
 
#25
This article is retarded and the posts in this thread are also retarded.

Yeah, so Middle Eastern countries do things some things better than us. Seems like their STEM educational culture is superior.

Or you can just make up non reasons, and idiotic unproved theories.

Do go on.....
 
#26
Well all of that unwelcoming culture stuff still exists and matters once women do start working (in the U.S.). College is important, but so is the work life after.

I do think these studies need to actually dive deeper though, it seems surface level. They should look at each leading system, and all Arab countries and break it down for us. Though much of that info is available with some research.
We did this already.... More than once. Women do not feel the need to get into these fields anymore because they feel equally treated so they rather chose want they really want to do. Remember the experiments with one day old babies and how babies with more testosterone show more interest in technical and mechanical things while babies with less are interested in social aspects, faces, interaction etc. Remember the documentary about the gender equality paradox?
 
#27
We did this already.... More than once. Women do not feel the need to get into these fields anymore because they feel equally treated so they rather chose want they really want to do. Remember the experiments with one day old babies and how babies with more testosterone show more interest in technical and mechanical things while babies with less are interested in social aspects, faces, interaction etc. Remember the documentary about the gender equality paradox?
I'm actually talking about the culture still being a problem for women who are already in the field, not getting more women into the field by improving that culture. The tech boys club thing still exists for women in the field, as per what feminists also talk about.
 
Last edited:
#28
I'm actually talking about the culture still being a problem for women who are already in the field, not getting more women into the field by improving that culture. The tech boys club thing still exists for women in the field, as per what feminists also talk about.
Then I want the evidence for this and not based on feelings. Feminists always cry how toxic men are so that is no evidence at all. Also let us not forget how toxic the culure in countries like Saudi Arabia must be. You can hit women, they can not decide anything and need a guardian. Do you really think that this would be different during their work?
 
Last edited:
#29
Then I want the evidence for this and not based on feelings. Feminists always cry how toxic men are so that is no evidence at all. Also let us not forget how toxic the culure in countries like Saudi Arabia must be. You can hit women, they can not decide anything and need a guardian. Do you really think that this would be different during their work?
How do you quantify toxicity? It's tough. All we can do is listen to women, talk to the women in our workplaces, read their stories of harassment, etc.

Also it's really only useful to look at relative toxicity, so comparing the US's situation to Saudi Arabia's doesn't tell us much. A better comparison would be the experience of women in the STEM field in the US vs. women outside of it. A woman in the US will never have an experience as toxic as many of the women in Saudi Arabia, so why would that be the "baseline"?
 
#30
How do you quantify toxicity? It's tough. All we can do is listen to women, talk to the women in our workplaces, read their stories of harassment, etc.

Also it's really only useful to look at relative toxicity, so comparing the US's situation to Saudi Arabia's doesn't tell us much. A better comparison would be the experience of women in the STEM field in the US vs. women outside of it. A woman in the US will never have an experience as toxic as many of the women in Saudi Arabia, so why would that be the "baseline"?
Because if this were the case then women here are totally fragile and can not even handle a stupid t-shirt while women in Saudi Arabia are much though based on their real toxic environment at their workplaces. And somehow i can not believe this. Again there are 70% of women in STEM even with this toxic work environment.

Also yes listen and have conversations with women but not listen to modern Feminism
 
Last edited:
#31
Then I want the evidence for this and not based on feelings. Feminists always cry how toxic men are so that is no evidence at all.
Ask Fox News

Sexual Harassment Lawsuits are a great example. One issue is that the vast majority of them get dismissed pretrial because the standards are so high.
 
#32
Ask Fox News

Sexual Harassment Lawsuits are a great example. One issue is that the vast majority of them get dismissed pretrial because the standards are so high.
what standards? And do not get me wrong there is sexual harassment and then there is wearing a stupid t-shirt which according to some also is responsible for not much women in Stem fields according to some people. aka The spaceex guy Talyor. The reason #metoo was actually established is of course a reason. But maybe you should look up what that means. And no it is not a Atari co founder inviting women in his hot tub.
 
Last edited:
#33
Because if this were the case then women here are totally fragile and can not even handle a stupid t-shirt while women in Saudi Arabia are much though based on their real toxic environment at their workplaces. And somehow i can not believe this. Again there are 70% of women in STEM even with this toxic work environment.

Also yes listen and have conversations with women but not listen to modern Feminism
Correction. Women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and some more have less representation in the work place, even though they have more representation in college. This is compared to rhe U.S.
 
#34
what standards? And do not get me wrong there is sexual harassment and then there is wearing a stupid t-shirt which according to some also is responsible for not much women in Stem fields according to some people. aka The spaceex guy Talyor. The reason #metoo was actually established is of course a reason. But maybe you should look up what that means. And no it is not a Atari co founder inviting women in his hot tub.
Severe and pervasive standards. This was done to a male:

The supervisor] told the plaintiff, 'Hey handsome, come here and sit in my lap,' talked about raping the worker multiple times, talked about his genitals," among other, worse offenses, Sperino says. "The court dismissed the case."

Why? The judge reasoned that the two-dozen incidents occurred over a 10-day period — too brief a period of time to qualify as "pervasive." But in other cases where incidents occurred over longer periods, Sperino says judges often say the infractions were too sporadic to be pervasive.
 
#35
I mean it has always seemed to be that most women I knew on aerage just good old fashion didn't give a fuck about STEM, kinda like most men I knew didn't give a fuck about being a Nurse. I am struggling to understand why that's a problem.
 
#36
Severe and pervasive standards. This was done to a male:

You are presenting anecdotal evidence of one asshole judge, I'm sure there are hundreds of egregious decisions on cases every year of other crimes too. Is there actual evidence that the judicial system treats sexual crimes with less regard than other crimes or are you just repeating a narrative established by the authoritarian left that seems very annoyed with due process and a legal system that believes in being innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
 
#37
I mean it has always seemed to be that most women I knew on aerage just good old fashion didn't give a fuck about STEM, kinda like most men I knew didn't give a fuck about being a Nurse. I am struggling to understand why that's a problem.
There are many reasons, but here are a few:

Governments want more natives in stem because it increases the tax base and enriches families. STEM are the jobs of now and the future. The gov needs natives over F1 visas, and corporations give plenty of excuses why they need F1's.

Corporations want STEM women because it adds to the diversity of ideas. They see that it increases innovation, makes their products better, improves their reputation, broadens their customer base, and increases the talent pool supply. Companies believe that it makes them more competitive, and it does.

Government and corporations are reaching out to their benefit. Work cultures are shifting to maximize the appeal and retention of qualified applicants.

So if you want the opportunity and are willing to work for it, you should find something. The best companies want you, and will accomodate.
 
Last edited:
#38
You are presenting anecdotal evidence of one asshole judge, I'm sure there are hundreds of egregious decisions on cases every year of other crimes too. Is there actual evidence that the judicial system treats sexual crimes with less regard than other crimes or are you just repeating a narrative established by the authoritarian left that seems very annoyed with due process and a legal system that believes in being innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
Less regard? I said the standards of proof are high. It requires severe and pervasive evidence. A good example of evidence is the latest Weinstein lawsuit.

That standard shit that you get fired/reported for in your office doesn't usually go to trial. But the whole point is that sexual harassment claims are evidence of work culture that needs to be improved, that feminists speak about. And we know that sexual harassment is vastly underreported.
 
#39
Less regard? I said the standards of proof are high. It requires severe and pervasive evidence. A good example of evidence is the latest Weinstein lawsuit.

That standard shit that you get fired/reported for in your office doesn't usually go to trial. But the whole point is that sexual harassment claims are evidence of work culture that needs to be improved, that feminists speak about. And we know that sexual harassment is vastly underreported.

But again is there any evidence that the judicial system is biased against a specific kind of victims or do you actually have a problem with due process? The standards of proof are supposed to be high because like I said in a civilized society we require proof beyond reasonable doubt to consider someone guilty of a crime.
 
#40
But again is there any evidence that the judicial system is biased against a specific kind of victims or do you actually have a problem with due process? The standards of proof are supposed to be high because like I said in a civilized society we require proof beyond reasonable doubt to consider someone guilty of a crime.
The issue with the Justice department and sexual harrassment is cultural, the culture around sexual harrassment and what an individual judge believes is and isn't valid. There's many meaty claims from a quick google search that have been thrown out on tiny technicalities, or dismissive judgements from a judge before you can prove guilt in trial. But times change and this is a bit off topic.
 
Last edited:
#41
I have no idea why people think that a study like this means that when it comes to women in STEM that means to stop trying to be diverse, stop trying to remove obstacles that normally affect underpresented classes.

It just means that in the right situation women can be represented in the STEM field by over 40%. Damore got fired at google because he is a idiot. Google has always had mentorships since day 1 that overwhelmingly helped white males. But because google decided to invest in mentoring women suddenly there is a problem. Google successfully raised female tech. Workers from 17% to 20% in three years. Good job google.
 
Last edited:
#42
I have no idea why people think that a study like this means that when it comes to women in STEM that means to stop trying to be diverse, stop trying to remove obstacles that normally affect underpresented classes.

It just means that in the right situation women can be represented in the STEM field by over 40%. Damore got fired at google because he is a idiot. Google has always had mentorships since day 1 that overwhelmingly helped white males. But because google decided to invest in mentoring women suddenly there is a problem. Google successfully raised female tech. Workers from 17% to 20% in three years. Good job google.
The point is that it is some utopian wish to get 50:50 in these fields because if women feel equally presented in society they rather want to do what they actually want.

So all these program, all this men are the problem feels very forced. There is no problem if a job like Nurse or a IT have a bigger gap between men and women. Who cares if its 90:10, 70:30 or 30:70. And that was also that Damore said for which he was fired after a feministic shitstorm. Forced diversity is always wrong diversity is the best when it was created in a way more natural way. Which means no preference at job interviews. Take the best person available done.

Programms to encourage children should never be based on gender or race. ALL children should be encouraged to do what they really want. And not trying to trick women into something they actually do not even want.

Oh and right now boys really need help and ecouragement since they are dropping out of University statistics like flies.
 
Last edited:
#43
During my life (I'm 32) I have known very few women interested in STEM fields and as a teacher nowadays in regular school I still see the same thing, most girls in the last year of high school are not pursuing this area and there is literally NOTHING forbidding them to so.

I'm sure a lot of you see the same situation around you. Why? I have no idea, I can only think about different interests and that's it.
 
#44
Sexual Harassment Lawsuits are a great example. One issue is that the vast majority of them get dismissed pretrial because the standards are so high.
Sexual Harassment is not a crime, but a civil offense and respectively is judged by standards lower than "beyond reasonable doubt".

... retarded and... also retarded.
... and idiotic....
Would you please use a bit less offensive language.
 
#45
The point is that it is some utopian wish to get 50:50 in these fields because if women feel equally presented in society they rather want to do what they actually want.

So all these program, all this men are the problem feels very forced. There is no problem if a job like Nurse or a IT have a bigger gap between men and women. Who cares if its 90:10, 70:30 or 30:70. And that was also that Damore said for which he was fired after a feministic shitstorm. Forced diversity is always wrong diversity is the best when it was created in a way more natural way. Which means no preference at job interviews. Take the best person available done.

Programms to encourage chidlren should never be based on gender or race. ALL children should be encouraged to do what they really want. And not trying to trick women into something they actually do not even want.

What company is trying to force this 50% standard? Most companies are just investing in mundane things like outreach, mentorship or classes without some strict deadline to increase diversity . With Google We are talking about a multi-billion dollar company spending a drop in the bucket to reach out to women.

Also it’s laughable that you think women are being “tricked” into being into the tech field. Have you ever looked at it from the perspective that plenty of women want to be involved and they just needed a little guidance?
 
#46
There are many reasons, but here are a few:

Governments want more natives in stem because it increases the tax base and enriches families. STEM are the jobs of now and the future. The gov needs natives over F1 visas, and corporations give plenty of excuses why they need F1's.

Corporations want STEM women because it adds to the diversity of ideas. They see that it increases innovation, makes their products better, improves their reputation, broadens their customer base, and increases the talent pool supply. Companies believe that it makes them more competitive, and it does.

Government and corporations are reaching out to their benefit. Work cultures are shifting to maximize the appeal and retention of qualified applicants.

So if you want the opportunity and are willing to work for it, you should find something. The best companies want you, and will accomodate.
All fair points, I'm just wondering what is to be done if people are genuinely just not interested in persuing these career paths. Will they be forced against their wills?
 
#47
What company is trying to force this 50% standard?
Well, at diversity training at the company I work, I asked HR reps whether they had quotas. The answer was no.
Yet, they had "targets", chuckle.
So, there is that, although "targets" are unlikely to be 50%.

In Asia, I was told, they actually achieved 50/50, so it should eventually be doable elsewhere as well.
 
Last edited:
#48
Well, at diversity training at the company I work, I asked HR reps whether they had quotas. The answer was no.
Yet, they had "targets", chuckle.
So, there is that, although "targets" are unlikely to be 50%.

In Asia, I was told, they actually achieved 50/50, so it should eventually be doable elsewhere as well.
What kind of things does your job do to meet these diversity targets?
 
#49
What company is trying to force this 50% standard? Most companies are just investing in mundane things like outreach, mentorship or classes without some strict deadline to increase diversity . With Google We are talking about a multi-billion dollar company spending a drop in the bucket to reach out to women.

Also it’s laughable that you think women are being “tricked” into being into the tech field. Have you ever looked at it from the perspective that plenty of women want to be involved and they just needed a little guidance?
But this is exactly what people like you are doing.

It is like a girl loves animals and people and want to be a doctor or a nurse. While you trying to say "hey look I know you actually want this but you know math and computer are also fun. Have you checked them out? How about this programm for google for women only? I bet you can get in there with no problem" And yes I think women are being tricked into these job because of diversity reasons. You have ridiculous high chance to get into these jobs as a women you will never be unemployment because of diversity etc. Meanwhile companies struggle to get even 30% in these field filled with women. and again this will not change If if you would bann every men in these jobs.....

Also I love the word "guidance" like it is some religion or shit.

Mabye JUST maybe you should listen to all this actual scientific evidence and accept that men and women are different. That children with more testerone are more intrested in technical and mechanical stuff and then you should start to finally look at your child or a teacher should look at his/her children in school and look what they really want and support these chidlren not based on gender, race or any bullshit but on their own interests
 
Last edited:
#50
All fair points, I'm just wondering what is to be done if people are genuinely just not interested in persuing these career paths. Will they be forced against their wills?
They'll work with what they have, but will continue to reach out. They may get more aggressive in recruiting though.
 
Last edited: