So yeah, the PC people have won once again..

[rob_gould]

Something else you might find interesting, for the sake of an alternative viewpoint :

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap-childcare-penalty

 

[user 37518]

The gender pay gap is not established by comparing the salaries of men and women in different jobs.

If you compare women who're nurses and men who're hedge fund managers and vice versa, there'll obviously be a gap in salaries.

The gender pay gap is established by comparing men and women who do equivalent work. 

To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue.

I'm also curious about where you got the info about Sweden's gender pay gap increasing.  That doesn't tally with this information

https://sweden.se/society/gender-equality-in-sweden/

When did I ever mention the word "pay"? I said, the proffession gap, perhaps "gap" is not the correct word, lets call it profession selection difference, as in the need to take more women into the STEM fields. I never mentioned the payment gap, I was merely talking about that the egalitarian measures to invite women into STEM fields have actually produced the opposite. The goverment thought that if society became more egalitarian, women wouldn't feel oppresed and become more interested on STEM fields, but it backfired because the fact is that women in general do not want to become engineers, that was my point, I never said anything about payment, you misinterpreted. Please read my previous post again.

 

[rob_gould]

Yes, I did misread that.

The first link I posted suggests that women are becoming increasingly well represented though, rather than less well.  It doesn't specifically mention technical professions admittedly.

Do you have a link to the research about women not choosing technical fields of work in Scandinavian countries?  I'm curious about that.

Edit - found it myself.

 

[midwayfair]

The goverment thought The goverment thought that if society became more egalitarian, women wouldn't feel oppresed and become more interested on STEM fields, but it backfired because the fact is that women in general do not want to become engineers

The Geary study you obliquely cited (http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf) doesn't say that, or even hint that this is the conclusion you should draw. It does not mention governments at all. I don't know if you read the actual study on your own, but you've grossly misstated many things about it, including its conclusions, with this sentence.

That study notes that *in Sweden and Finland* at a *particular moment in history*, the percentage of women going into STEM fields decreased even as the pay gap decreased, and claims this trend holds elsewhere. There is no separation of biological and cultural influence on this decision, and one thing that they also note is that often women are just as men at math but choose to do something they're even better at. They study authors specifically state that girls and boys prior to college demonstrate the same or similar levels of scientific literacy, but the girls exceed their scientific capabilities in other fields, in other words, girls dominate boys academically and given their druthers they'll choose their best subject to focus in.

That study has numerous problems, starting with the fact that its results were unreproducible, and even after the authors issued a correction to the paper, the results were, again, unreproducible.

A follow-up study in 2020 on mathematics noted that the gender equality paradox expressed more strongly in cultures that culturally associate men with mathematics. In other words, there is a social eqalitarianism deficit in those countries. If you offer people the same pay for job A and job B but have told them their whole life that girls go into job A and boys go into job B, then people will continue to sort themselves into those neat little categories. Statements like the one I quoted from you are self-fulfilling prophecies, and half the expertise and life experience of half the human race is denied certain specialties. Nursing and elementary school teaching are improved by the presence of men, and engineering firms are improved by the presence of women. It's noted over and over again by large companies that diversity is in and of itself a benefit to the work product. Large software companies aren't falling over themselves trying to solve this gap because they think it earns them browny points with nobodies on Twitter, they're doing it because it's good for the product and their bottom line.

Anyway, you can follow the links to the original and follow up studies in the wikipedia article if you wish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Even if -- and this is as strong an if I can express -- there is, in fact, a biological preference among human women against mathematics as a profession*, there is no study that demonstrates that. Geary's study and others like it are descriptive studies. There is no practical or ethical way to actually test the theory. You would need a control group that grows up in a society with no bias against women in mathematics, and there is no such society anywhere in the world.

*Think about what this actually means: You have to argue that there is evolutionary pressure on how people earn money.

 

[user 37518]

The Geary study you obliquely cited (http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf) doesn't say that, or even hint that this is the conclusion you should draw. It does not mention governments at all. I don't know if you read the actual study on your own, but you've grossly misstated many things about it, including its conclusions, with this sentence.

That study notes that *in Sweden and Finland* at a *particular moment in history*, the percentage of women going into STEM fields decreased even as the pay gap decreased, and claims this trend holds elsewhere. There is no separation of biological and cultural influence on this decision, and one thing that they also note is that often women are just as men at math but choose to do something they're even better at. They study authors specifically state that girls and boys prior to college demonstrate the same or similar levels of scientific literacy, but the girls exceed their scientific capabilities in other fields, in other words, girls dominate boys academically and given their druthers they'll choose their best subject to focus in.

That study has numerous problems, starting with the fact that its results were unreproducible, and even after the authors issued a correction to the paper, the results were, again, unreproducible.

A follow-up study in 2020 on mathematics noted that the gender equality paradox expressed more strongly in cultures that culturally associate men with mathematics. In other words, there is a social eqalitarianism deficit in those countries. If you offer people the same pay for job A and job B but have told them their whole life that girls go into job A and boys go into job B, then people will continue to sort themselves into those neat little categories. Statements like the one I quoted from you are self-fulfilling prophecies, and half the expertise and life experience of half the human race is denied certain specialties. Nursing and elementary school teaching are improved by the presence of men, and engineering firms are improved by the presence of women. It's noted over and over again by large companies that diversity is in and of itself a benefit to the work product. Large software companies aren't falling over themselves trying to solve this gap because they think it earns them browny points with nobodies on Twitter, they're doing it because it's good for the product and their bottom line.

Anyway, you can follow the links to the original and follow up studies in the wikipedia article if you wish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

Even if -- and this is as strong an if I can express -- there is, in fact, a biological preference among human women against mathematics as a profession*, there is no study that demonstrates that. Geary's study and others like it are descriptive studies. There is no practical or ethical way to actually test the theory. You would need a control group that grows up in a society with no bias against women in mathematics, and there is no such society anywhere in the world.

*Think about what this actually means: You have to argue that there is evolutionary pressure on how people earn money.

Look I teach EE at college level, I've been doing it for quite some time, its not a matter of intellectual ability, many times my female students are consistently better than men, the very few of them, not all, but many are great students, last semester the top student of my class was a woman, there were around 4 women in a group of 60 students, so that tells you something. But the fact is that the proportion of male to female engineers ratio is staggering. Even when I was an engineering student, the amount of females was extremely low, and I had many of them as friends so I asked them about what they felt about being surrounded by men, all of them told me that they liked it, that over time it helped them understand better how men think and act, they told me they liked the simplicity of menand that they do had to get used to dealing with more men but that once they saw how men are they just accepted it, they never felt oppressed or harrased by men, one of them actually said that she felt "protected", many in fact expressed that they had an advantage over men, they believed that professors (which are mostly men) actually favoured their grades just because they were women, their words, not mine. In fact, long ago I read a study that somehow confirms this, that women over their academic careers in STEM fields, and even in science subjects in high school, were benefited just because they were women, and that they were not subject to the amount of frustration that their men counterparts had to withstand, and that this wasn't good for women because that gave them less "tools" to confront difficult situations, is this real or not? I don't know.

I will tell you this, over my entire career, both as  student and teacher all the engineer women I've known are not your typical woman, and I am not talking about intellectual skills, I am talking about their whole attitude and mentality, don't want to sound bad but these women are great buddies, and my conclusion is that it is simply because they are more like men, I'm not saying that they are not femenine, some are extremely femenine and beautiful, I am talking about that they are more in tune with men in the way they think and act, they share a lot of common interests that we do. I don't need a damn academic study to tell me about what I see every day.

All I am saying is that it takes a specific type of women to study engineering or science, again, I am not talking about intellectual ability, I am talking about a way of thinking, its just a fact of life that men like, in general, different things that women do, and to make people believe that women are not going into the STEM fields is because they feel intimidated, not motivated or not encouraged enough is a lame excuse, the fact is that most women simply do not like STEM, and thats it, and I don't think that the solution is to try and equalize that by force. They always say "We desperately need more women into the STEM fields" and my question is always "Why?", it can arguably be said that a female point of view can contribute something different, but calling society "desperate" for women to go into the STEM fields just doesn't make sense to me, like saying "science is doomed because we dont have more women doing it" sounds ridiculous, my main suspicion is that people in STEM fields just feel guilty that they are mostly men, it is society the ones that are judging the value of a woman on what she decides to study, STEM=good, humanities=bad. Why no one ever said "We desperately need more women construction workers?", or "We desperately need more women welders", you see, because those last statements or careers are considered unworthy or beneath most people, which I completely disagree. How about "We desperately need more male nurses?" or "We desperately need more men in the humanities" they could also contribute something from a different point of view, why is no campaign to equalize that?

Jakob said it perfectly, this forum is called GroupDIY and I don't seem many women, In fact I've already asked, has anyone seen a member here that its a woman? a truly active member? if you are one of those woman members please make a statement, because during 13 years of membership in this forum I haven't seen one. Do you think they are not here because they feel intimidated, unmotivated or threatened by us? I don't think so, the easiest explanation is that most do not give a fuck about what we do.

 

[Dreams]

Look I teach EE at college level, I've been doing it for quite some time, its not a matter of intellectual ability, many times my female students are consistently better than men, the very few of them, not all, but many are great students, last semester the top student of my class was a woman, there were around 4 women in a group of 60 students, so that tells you something. But the fact is that the proportion of male to female engineers ratio is staggering. Even when I was an engineering student, the amount of females was extremely low, and I had many of them as friends so I asked them about what they felt about being surrounded by men, all of them told me that they liked it, that over time it helped them understand better how men think and act, they told me they liked the simplicity of menand that they do had to get used to dealing with more men but that once they saw how men are they just accepted it, they never felt oppressed or harrased by men, one of them actually said that she felt "protected", many in fact expressed that they had an advantage over men, they believed that professors (which are mostly men) actually favoured their grades just because they were women, their words, not mine. In fact, long ago I read a study that somehow confirms this, that women over their academic careers in STEM fields, and even in science subjects in high school, were benefited just because they were women, and that they were not subject to the amount of frustration that their men counterparts had to withstand, and that this wasn't good for women because that gave them less "tools" to confront difficult situations, is this real or not? I don't know.

I will tell you this, over my entire career, both as  student and teacher all the engineer women I've known are not your typical woman, and I am not talking about intellectual skills, I am talking about their whole attitude and mentality, don't want to sound bad but these women are great buddies, and my conclusion is that it is simply because they are more like men, I'm not saying that they are not femenine, some are extremely femenine and beautiful, I am talking about that they are more in tune with men in the way they think and act, they share a lot of common interests that we do. I don't need a damn academic study to tell me about what I see every day.

All I am saying is that it takes a specific type of women to study engineering or science, again, I am not talking about intellectual ability, I am talking about a way of thinking, its just a fact of life that men like, in general, different things that women do, and to make people believe that women are not going into the STEM fields is because they feel intimidated, not motivated or not encouraged enough is a lame excuse, the fact is that most women simply do not like STEM, and thats it, and I don't think that the solution is to try and equalize that by force. They always say "We desperately need more women into the STEM fields" and my question is always "Why?", it can arguably be said that a female point of view can contribute something different, but calling society "desperate" for women to go into the STEM fields just doesn't make sense to me, like saying "science is doomed because we dont have more women doing it" sounds ridiculous, my main suspicion is that people in STEM fields just feel guilty that they are mostly men, it is society the ones that are judging the value of a woman on what she decides to study, STEM=good, humanities=bad. Why no one ever said "We desperately need more women construction workers?", or "We desperately need more women welders", you see, because those last statements or careers are considered unworthy or beneath most people, which I completely disagree. How about "We desperately need more male nurses?" or "We desperately need more men in the humanities" they could also contribute something from a different point of view, why is no campaign to equalize that?

Jakob said it perfectly, this forum is called GroupDIY and I don't seem many women, In fact I've already asked, has anyone seen a member here that its a woman? a truly active member? if you are one of those woman members please make a statement, because during 13 years of membership in this forum I haven't seen one. Do you think they are not here because they feel intimidated, unmotivated or threatened by us? I don't think so, the easiest explanation is that most do not give a f**k about what we do.

My god dude, shut up

 

[gyraf]

..why shut up? I don't get it..?

 

[Dreams]

..why shut up? I don't get it..?

He's making a kind of brute-force argument that's generally off base enough that it isn't worth being validated by a thoughtful response, but i still feel like i need to push back against it, so "shut up" seemed appropriately measured

 

[Dreams]

I don't have all night to sit here and refute this toxic crap. Mods won't stop it, so

 

[rob_gould]

Edit : Decided to withdraw my participation in this one

 

[user 37518]

He's making a kind of brute-force argument that's generally off base enough that it isn't worth being validated by a thoughtful response, but i still feel like i need to push back against it, so "shut up" seemed appropriately measured

What brute force argument? What exactly do you find so off base? I never insulted or offended anyone, shut up doesn't contribute that much doesn't it, you don't have to read it or participate if you don't agree. I think you have just proven my point, cancel culture is alive and well, you say something people don't like and they just tell you to shut up, that was the entire point of why I started this thread.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

He's making a kind of brute-force argument that's generally off base enough that it isn't worth being validated by a thoughtful response, but i still feel like i need to push back against it, so "shut up" seemed appropriately measured

I don't think it's "off-base". Your answer, or rather lack of, is actually off-base. As you say elsewhere, your "opponent" is not even worthy of a substantiated answer.
You should have saved some electrons by summarizing your answer as "Pfff!", and it would have been no more senseless.
Dreaming is not an excuse for trolling.

 

[user 37518]

Again, talking about PC culture, I'll tell you what I consider innappropriate, brute force and plain insulting, Women's day is this monday, a tennis shoe company in my country decided to make these shoes to commemorate that day, and they thought this was ok:

Let me translate some of the stuff written there:

"You are the rapist"
"Get angry"
"Feminists"
"I am not afraid of you"
"Enough!"

Yes, its a shoe calling men rapits and asking women to get angry, but ohhh no, Gearslutz is so innapropriate.

 

[rob_gould]

That's not a like for like comparison in my opinion, but let's say for a second it is.

My question would be : can't both be inappropriate?

The fact that the shoes exist doesn't change the argument over the name of the website does it?

One thing I find frustrating about these kind of discussions is the idea that for one 'sidr' to be wrong or incorrect, the opposing 'side' must therefore be correct, or true, or justified.

More often than not, thats not the case. The shoes can be in poor judgement and the website name can be in poor taste all at the same time.

 

[Banzai]

So following your logic, I guess that makes it ok, since it is blacks against blacks....

No, just means you have no logic.

 

[Banzai]

I think you have just proven my point, cancel culture is alive and well, you say something people don't like and they just tell you to shut up, that was the entire point of why I started this thread.

Again, no. Freedom of speech is alive and well. Everyone here has the right to tell you to put a sock in it.

 

[fazer]

Or the right to ignore and stop reading and responding to the comments if you disagree.  Shut your mouth is a power response.  As if your opinion matters anymore than the next persons opinion.

 

[boji]

the opposing 'side' must therefore be correct, or true, or justified.

Yeah, makes me sad, truly.    Zero-sum games. Or in the case of "shut up", a request for positive feedback loops.  ('shut up' might as well have cried, "oppose me, strongly!").

The luddite vs crystal tower thing tho is making the rounds. Dreams is not alone in thinking types of intellectual curiosity are self-deceptive fronts against progress. 

 

[Matador]

What brute force argument? What exactly do you find so off base?

You are doing exactly what Jordan Peterson does, which is drawing a false conclusion (women are self-selecting away from STEM) from a set of true premises (that women are just as capable in technology as men).

Let's demonstrate:  let's go back and observe pharmacy education and practice in the Jim Crow south.  There are very few black men enrolled in pharmacy programs in college, and perhaps only handful of black pharmacists practicing.  We must therefore conclude that black men have self-selected away from medical professions? Or is it possible that there are other feedback mechanisms at work that are defining the overall system response?

If it was as simple as laws that barred women from attending STEM programs then the points of debate would be very clear.  Unfortunately, the poles and zeros of this system are pernicious and baked right into the current fabric of society, which is why we have to have these debates.

The real question that should be asked here is:  why do you have so few women in your EE classes?  In order to understand this we need to be willing to examine everything that led up to the college admissions progress, including:  what was offered in high school?  What opportunities were present in elementary school?  How does society present (and depict) valid career paths to young girls?  This is exactly what Peterson almost never does, when he puts out his "Hey guys, girls just must not like STEM due to biology!" hot takes.

 

[matriachamplification]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ugQ190hkc