Women leaving STEM

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Women leaving STEM

All the solutions to the supposed bias problem won't amount to much if the women leave anyway...

https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-women-now-leaving-stem-fields-pursue-...

Choice is such a nasty concept! It can derail any social engineering program. ;-)

Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
It is a real shame that we

It is a real shame that we white males are forcing women out of Science Technology, Engineering and Math fields. Or, it could be Trump's fault....

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 23 hours ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
It's well established that in

It's well established that in the most gender-equal countries relative to employment and pay - Scandinavia - women's choices skew toward traditional women's occupations.

The simple explanation: take compensation concerns out of the decision screen, and women are less likely to choose STEM occupations.

Weird, huh?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 12 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
That doesn't really explain

That doesn't really explain why there are tons of women in tech in India.

I suppose in general there is a general high level of prestige associated with engineering there, which would make it more socially palatable.

What would be interesting is to see career tech rates for indians born here vs. in India. It could also be that Indians tend to be more conservative, so you just do what your parents tell you to do, which is either doctor or engineer.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 23 hours ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
India, unlike the

India, unlike the Scandinavian countries, is not near the top of the gender equality scale.

Your comment about India reinforces my point: where women are truly on equal terms with men, and all choices are open to them, they are more likely, instead of less likely, to choose traditionally female jobs.

Self-actualizing is good, yes?

Here's one of many articles on the topic, this from the Atlantic.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 55 min 13 sec ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
So what? What’s the point?

So what? What’s the point?

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 23 hours ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Here's another commentary on

Here's another commentary on women in the work place in Scandinavia, from Reason.

"the rise of the Nordic welfare state has been a double-edged sword" for feminism, "creating some benefits for women's careers, but also creating barriers to women's professional progress." I would ask, women's professional progress by what standard?
...
But labor-force participation is only one measure of female professional success. Another measure is female business ownership. Anita Lignell Du Rietz studied women's business ownership in Sweden and found that many businesses, including taverns, tailor shops, breweries, and stores were run by women entrepreneurs during the 19th century. Over time, women dominated businesses such as schools and pharmacies.
...
However, government monopolies crowded out private enterprise as the Swedish welfare state grew during the 20th century. Meanwhile, male-dominated sectors, including manufacturing, mining, and forestry, remained under private control. The transition toward welfare-state monopolies meant that women's business ownership suffered.

Women in Nordic countries are less likely to hold management positions as their U.S. counterparts

Sanandaji finds that high taxes, mandated paid-leave policies, and the high cost of paid services also impede Nordic women's professional advancement. Overall, he concludes, "Nordic public-sector monopolies, tax policies, and welfare and family policies, along with ineffective gender quotas, combine to create the Nordic glass ceiling."

The point is that public policy interventions to "level the playing field" don't necessarily work out the way the advocates think they will.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
muttsy: So what? What’s the

muttsy: So what? What’s the point?

The one atop your head.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 55 min 13 sec ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
Are they tAking you out of

Are they tAking you out of the home for some air today, Udall? You should insist. It’s nice out.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 12 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mainemom: Well the idea is

@mainemom: Well the idea is that we don't want stereotypes, stigma, and social things keeping women who enjoy STEM work out of it.

I wouldn't expect to achieve complete gender parity in STEM jobs any more than I would expect to see gender parity in nursing and child care. However, it's not unreasonable to think that having few women in STEM jobs makes it harder for women to get into STEM jobs (same goes for men in nursing and child care).

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
This article was a bit

This article was a bit different - which is why I posted it here. If women who do get into STEM later leave, that isn't going to move the needle much.

On a personal note, and I guess industry wise, there were more women in computers back in the 1980s than there are now. Worse, there were more graduates in Computer Science back then than there are now. The percentage has dropped. In 1984, 37 percent of computer science majors were women, but by 2014 that number had dropped to 18 percent. This was one of those inconvenient facts that emerged during the Google explosion recently...

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/cracking-the-code:-why-aren-t-more-wome...
This story cites gender differences in the perception of success or failure of code to run correctly... but don't tell Google!

It stands to reason, with rates dropping like that, there was no way to achieve anything like numerical parity. If one company succeeded, several others must have failed.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
https://www.americanthinker

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/believe_all_women_at_yo...

"Of course, belief in such matters should depend on the search for credible evidence and the objective assessment of facts, but such an approach has been blithely discarded by another radical feminist and collaborator, Catherine MacKinnon. In Feminism Unmodified, she wrote: "Our critique of the objective standpoint as male is a critique of science as a specifically male approach to knowledge. With it, we reject male criteria for verification" (emphasis mine). It follows that truth deriving from objective analysis is a male conspiracy meant to subjugate women. Ergo, women must be believed regardless of evidence, the rule of law, and objective verification, since these are merely patriarchal strategies to enforce the masculine will."

Perhaps the "emerging" feminist view of science has something to do with it. Right, muttsie?

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
I certainly hope that most

I certainly hope that most folks don't agree with that (il)logic, since it would mean that women are unsuitable for science. Believing in only your own point of view is the road back to superstition.

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 55 min 13 sec ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
Now that he said/she is no

Now that he said/she is no longer a slam dunk for the “he,” all the pigs have come to Jesus, crying about rationality and proof and justice.

Lol.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
muttsy....I told you to stop

muttsy....I told you to stop licking yourself; now the "drool", if you want to call it that, is showing.

Log in to post comments