NationStates

True Democratic Socialism wrote:I mean, it is possible for a girl who was interested in for example horses to grow out of that and become interested in something completely unrelated, isn't it?

No.

Once you start down the pony path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will.

I encourage everyone to educate themselves, it makes for a more rich society overall.

Australian rePublic wrote:This is a non-issue to begin. If women don't wanna work in STEM, that's their perogative. If men don't wanna work in biology, that's their perogative. We need to stop telling men and women what carrers to choose and let them make up their damned minds. If women want to work in STEM, let them, if they don't want to, they shouldn't. If there are more female biologists than male biologists, good for them. If there are more male engineers than female engineers, good for them. As long as nobody is prevented from entering STEM because of their gender, then this become the biggest non-issue ever. I would say that this becomes the biggest first-world prpblem, but this too pety to qualify as such. Now, if men and/or women are preventing from enetering STEM, then it becomes a problem

For a lot of people there's an issue with WHY is there a difference in gender representation.
Are people choosing their careers from a blank slate, or are they subtly being guided by society towards certain careers?
Are certain government policies making certain jobs more attractive to particular genders? A good example of this is parental leave: is there none, maternal, or paternal leave as well?


When this topic comes up, one of my favourite examples is Software Engineering. Its a pretty new profession (~50 years) so it doesn't come with the baggage that older professions like law or medicine do. This is a profession in which many of the first ever practitioners are still alive today and have seen it evolve.

Software engineering is especially interesting because female participation was initially low, rose to a peak of ~35% in the early '80s, and dropped to ~18% today.

(some people estimate that the initial female participation was higher as in the early days of software engineering, the degree itself didn't exist any most people entered the profession with just mathematics degrees).
There is no obvious genetic reason why women would prefer this to men. There's no hard wiring in our monkey brains for software. Women perform just as well (if not better) at mathematics as men, so there's no innate physical aptitude. There's no degree of physicality or confrontation which might benefit higher testosterone levels.
So why are only 1 in 11 software engineers women? And why is it so much lower than it used to be?

Stanmenistan wrote:Encouraging young women and girls to take on careers in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) is a popular talking point in modern Feminism. However, it often overlooks that women are quite prominent in one field of science in particular; biology. Or at the very least, it downplays this fact in favour of promoting women working in other fields of Science (not that there's anything wrong with that, but focusing more if not near-exclusively on Female engineers, physicists etc. could be argued to send the message that female biologists are not as important as women in other STEM fields).

Considering the term STEM was coined by a female biologist, Rita R. Colwell, this seems like an oversight at best, or downright disrespectful at worst (Rita is an environmental microbiologist and she has degrees in bacteriology, genetics, and oceanography and studies infectious diseases). Most of my mathematics teachers were women also. I myself don't consider myself a feminist, but an Egalitarian. I known not all Feminists are radfem, but groups like TERFs are massive issue within the movement, not all female Feminists like men using the term feminist to describe their beliefs, and Feminist media critics sometimes seem to demonstrate a lack of research and/or ignorance about the things they are critiquing

I really dislike this line of thinking because its just an excuse to do nothing, to take the moral high ground which conveniently requires nothing more of you. People calling themselves "egalitarians" are never out campaigning for women's rights.. or men's rights. Its an attempt to take the high road... and yet still do

The question to "why are there so few female engineers and can we / how do we change that?" is exactly the same as "why are there so many female biologists and can we / how do we change that?". Gender representation isn't a one-way street - the workers have to come from somewhere ie, other professions. It's just way, way easier to frame the argument as "lets work out what is keeping you out of high paying jobs" instead of "how can we replace you with men in your lower paying job".

Could be related. I read a research article that was focused on why women (and, to a certain extent, minorities) are severely underrepresented in Philosophy. It analyzes a wide-range of possible reasons. An interesting one that might strongly apply to STEM is what the article referred to as Field-specific Ability Belief (FAB). This is the idea that the field requires a sort of natural affinity/brilliance in order to do well; that training has little impact on skill and performance, and that an innate talent is key to success. This research was done specifically in the context of Philosophy, but the results likely apply across STEM in general.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0016.006/16/--why-do-women-leave-philosophy-surveying-students-at?page=root;size=150;view=image#pagenav

Vassenor wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
They're focused on expanding female privilege rather than creating equality.
https://www.macleans.ca/society/could-h ... -stem-gap/

It's like white people up and deciding we need more white basketball players and acting like the system is rigged against them.

-drinks-

So long as anti-vaxxers are around, pointing out how their ideology is bunk is valid, even if they think you're being repetitive and your repetitiveness is a reason they don't need to listen. Their incredulity is not an argument.

I’m a little unclear what the exact point of discussion is in the OP.

I get the “female supremacists bad” part, but that’s not really a discussable point really.

Risottia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:What was the question again?

I'm pretty sure there was none in the OP.

If you want my question in question form, here it is: why the increased focus of women in non-biology related STEM fields and the downplaying of female achievement in biology? Why not celebrate female biologists? The vetenarians, the marine biologists, the microbiologists, the ecologists and all the other women working in biology are doing great work. Why exclude them from the girl power science party?

True Democratic Socialism wrote:

Stanmenistan wrote:It goes a bit deeper than that. In Nordic countries where gender equality is near-perfect, men and women still CHOOSE different jobs. And in the scientific world, most women choose to be Biologists, rather physicists, Engineers, computer technicians etc. By not mentioning this vital fact, you ignore a large chunk of female scientists.

Scientists did test on babies and female babies preferred looking at biological motion while male babies preferred looking at mechanical motion. That's why girls toys are often animals while boys toys are often machines.

Okay, that's a fine and dandy hypothesis of why men are over-represented in engineering and physics and women are over-represented in biology. BUT is really a natural genetic prefrance enough to explain the disparity?

I mean, it is possible for a girl who was interested in for example horses to grow out of that and become interested in something completely unrelated, isn't it? So what else could be at play? Could it be an inherit social factor of the fact that people make horse toys for girls and transformers for boys? Or could it maybe be so that if you have friends who are into horses, you keep your interest in horses because you have friends who are interested?

I mean I'm just saying that that explanation doesn't seem sufficient and it's important to know if it is because well, we should neither accidentally lock women out of high salaries nor force them into jobs they don't want to be doing.

Also what would the evolutionary pressure be that makes women more interested in animals and men in machines?

Answer to the last question; I don't know but similar results crop up in other Ape species. Male monkeys and apes like to play with toy trucks and female monkeys and apes like to play with dolls.

The fewer women in STEM the better.

I'm a female biologist and kind of a feminist, so I'm excited for this. Let's get cracking! *rubs hands*
Let's start with your sources. What do they say about this?

1. Nothing about biology and nothing we didn't already know.
2. This says female students study both biology and chemistry more than males, at a pretty significant proportional difference. (UK-specific, it appears)
3. YouTube video from Factual Feminist, i.e., worthless.
4. See above.
5. And again.
6. Women are still underrepresented in biology, just less underrepresented than other fields.
7. STEM-geared toys tend to focus on the T and E.
8. Same as above.
9. Says males are more interested in pursuing technology/engineering and women gravitate towards biology. No precise statistics.
10. "similar percentages of men and women planned to major in biology or physical sciences." (this was 1996, however, so things could've changed since then)
11. Doesn't say anything related to the gender disparity in biology vs. other fields.
12. Same as above.
13. Ditto.
14. And again.
15. Not even specifically targeted at STEM.
16. Not really relevant to biology and based on a largely discredited study.

Most of these sources don't really help us, are too imprecise, or are outdated. Narrowing it down to what's relevant:

• Source 2 - Female students are more likely to take biology and chemistry A-level science courses in the UK than male students.
• Source 6 - Women are underrepresented in all "hard science" fields, with a slightly lower disparity in life sciences.
• Sources 7 and 8 - Technology and engineering are more prioritized in terms of STEM-related toys for kids. No comparison to a site geared towards boys, so we can't really say this is disparate between girls and boys.

2 and 6 are contradictory, and 7 and 8 don't really say anything about the situation being gender-related. I really don't think we can say with certainty that women are equally represented or overrepresented in biology based on this evidence, and it seems to suggest that women are still dealt at least a slightly unfair hand. Furthermore, if we check the numbers in terms of actual outcome rather than student ratios, we find some unpleasant gender imbalances, as in these (non-exhaustive) examples:

• Entomology (my field): Women are underrepresented in entomology in terms of academic and government positions
• Ecology (somewhat hazy): Women are more likely to have their ecology/evolution papers rejected and their papers are cited less often
• Biology generally: Women are heavily underrepresented in high-achieving biology labs and in biology professor positions at universities

So it's clear that even if women are as or more interested in biology, they aren't seeing the same kind of results. We can argue as to why that is and it's pretty much impossible to get a solid conclusion, but I think it's pretty likely that confidence differences ultimately resulting from what one might call "toxic femininity," combined with both unconscious and conscious discrimination by biologists, are the main cause. If we assume I'm right, then the answer seems to be combating said toxic femininity through programs intended to get women interested in science.

And that brings us to your point about biology being ignored in favor of technology, engineering, and physics. I'm not convinced that it's really a gendered thing at the moment; rather, we see general patterns across education where young children are educated about science in a very biology-exclusionary manner. Typical in-class activities and toys for kids tend to revolve around entertaining chemical reactions (baking soda volcanoes, most famously), building things (e.g., LEGO), or basic coding (e.g., Scratch). While elementary classes sometimes engage in biology-related activities (growing a class plant or keeping a caterpillar and watching its life cycle), they tend to be long-form and take a backseat to those other activities. I think I know why: good biology is often expensive, resource-intensive, difficult to perform spontaneously, and/or not always immediately visible, and kids are very interactive by nature. The symbioses and behavior that help form a leaf-cutter ant's fungus garden are incredibly fascinating, but you need to go into the field to see a colony really acting naturally, it takes a long time to form, and you can't necessarily see everything going on. In contrast, you can very easily grab baking soda and vinegar from your pantry, make a papier-mâché volcano, and make it run in less than an hour with immediately visible and incredibly entertaining results. Which one of these is a teacher going to do to sate their hyperactive 5-year-old students?

So because of this, biology kind of lags behind in our collective psyche. We know it's a science, but we never really learned to associate it as much with science as physics and chemistry because it was largely omitted in this formative period. That's part of why organizations promoting women in STEM might unconsciously focus away from the life sciences. The other reason is that life sciences require a lot of education and outside of medicine, aren't tremendously lucrative or in high demand. We need computer scientists and engineers because the first world has gotten used to constant innovation and convenience, and we're willing to pay technologically skilled individuals a pretty penny to give that to us. Combine that with the extra underrepresentation of women in those fields and you start to generate a really good set of reasons that we should be promoting women in tech and engineering.

I don't really know what the right solution here is, but your criticisms are kind of jumbled and appear unwarranted in this particular instance.

Exedith wrote:Could be related. I read a research article that was focused on why women (and, to a certain extent, minorities) are severely underrepresented in Philosophy. It analyzes a wide-range of possible reasons. An interesting one that might strongly apply to STEM is what the article referred to as Field-specific Ability Belief (FAB). This is the idea that the field requires a sort of natural affinity/brilliance in order to do well; that training has little impact on skill and performance, and that an innate talent is key to success. This research was done specifically in the context of Philosophy, but the results likely apply across STEM in general.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0016.006/16/--why-do-women-leave-philosophy-surveying-students-at?page=root;size=150;view=image#pagenav

That's bullshit and flies directly in the face of learning science. Skills like this are essentially never fixed and if there are personality traits contributing to leaving, they are not the result of a natural affinity for philosophy/STEM/whatever specifically.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The fewer women in STEM the better.

Wtf UMN, explain yourself

Cekoviu wrote:I'm a female biologist and kind of a feminist, so I'm excited for this. Let's get cracking! *rubs hands*
Let's start with your sources. What do they say about this?

1. Nothing about biology and nothing we didn't already know.
2. This says female students study both biology and chemistry more than males, at a pretty significant proportional difference. (UK-specific, it appears)
3. YouTube video from Factual Feminist, i.e., worthless.
4. See above.
5. And again.
6. Women are still underrepresented in biology, just less underrepresented than other fields.
7. STEM-geared toys tend to focus on the T and E.
8. Same as above.
9. Says males are more interested in pursuing technology/engineering and women gravitate towards biology. No precise statistics.
10. "similar percentages of men and women planned to major in biology or physical sciences." (this was 1996, however, so things could've changed since then)
11. Doesn't say anything related to the gender disparity in biology vs. other fields.
12. Same as above.
13. Ditto.
14. And again.
15. Not even specifically targeted at STEM.
16. Not really relevant to biology and based on a largely discredited study.

Thank you for your response, Cekoviu. My responses.

1. That's kind of the point. It doesn't mention women in Biology AT ALL. That is a kick in the teeth to Rita R. Colwell, the female biologist who popularised the term STEM.
2. It may be UK-specific, but similar studies across the globe would yield similar results, I'm certain. Female Chemists may be another group underrepresented in STEM feminism.
3. Christina Hoff Sommers uses sources, something not every Feminist on the other side of the political spectrum can say. And just because you disagree with her some of the time, doesn't mean you will always disagree with her.
4. Ditto.
5. See above.
6. Correct. That is why I feel STEM Feminism needs to do more to promote Female Biologists as role models for young women and girls.
7. But why? What's wrong with Biology (or Mathematics for that matter)? Why not encourage children to learn more about the living world and how animals/human beings work? Or how numbers and geometry can be applied to real life?
8. See above.
9. Again, this is a general trend. If women want to be biologists and men want to be engineers, there is nothing wrong with that.
10. EDF's Pretty Curious campaign was designed to encourage women and girls into STEM careers, but it did not mention many female biologists.
11. It mentions Male students are also more likely to pursue engineering and technology fields, while female students prefer science fields, like biology, chemistry, and marine biology. Why deny their choices?
12. Same as above.
13. Ditto.
14. And Again.
15. But it is about how in societies where Gender Equality is well-established like the various Nordic countries, men and women STILL do different jobs. They have the choice to any job they want, but they chose different jobs. So even if girls and women were as encouraged to get into other topics in STEM, the vast majority are still likely to want to be biologists.
16. Biologists are often looked down upon by scientists in other fields. While most of this is light-hearted banter, if this spreads to teens and children it could get ugly. Are girls who want to do engineering going to bully girls who like animals and want to be Vets or Marine Biologists? That's not a future I want for any children I may have.

Cekoviu wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The fewer women in STEM the better.

Wtf UMN, explain yourself

DW, I reported him.

Stanmenistan wrote:In my thread on STEM Feminism and Female Biologists, I wanted to discuss the disparity between encouraging women to take on STEM careers and the large presence of women in the field of Biology as opposed to the other sciences, which (in my eyes) is rarely mentioned in these kind of discussions.

But then United Muscovite Nations chimes in with this post;

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The fewer women in STEM the better.

Is he flaming? is this actionable?

Stanmenistan wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:I'm a female biologist and kind of a feminist, so I'm excited for this. Let's get cracking! *rubs hands*
Let's start with your sources. What do they say about this?

1. Nothing about biology and nothing we didn't already know.
2. This says female students study both biology and chemistry more than males, at a pretty significant proportional difference. (UK-specific, it appears)
3. YouTube video from Factual Feminist, i.e., worthless.
4. See above.
5. And again.
6. Women are still underrepresented in biology, just less underrepresented than other fields.
7. STEM-geared toys tend to focus on the T and E.
8. Same as above.
9. Says males are more interested in pursuing technology/engineering and women gravitate towards biology. No precise statistics.
10. "similar percentages of men and women planned to major in biology or physical sciences." (this was 1996, however, so things could've changed since then)
11. Doesn't say anything related to the gender disparity in biology vs. other fields.
12. Same as above.
13. Ditto.
14. And again.
15. Not even specifically targeted at STEM.
16. Not really relevant to biology and based on a largely discredited study.

Thank you for your response, Cekoviu. My responses.
1. That's kind of the point. It doesn't mention women in Biology AT ALL. That is a kick in the teeth to Rita R. Colwell, the female biologist who invented the term STEM.

Oh, I see. Yeah, it's pretty nonspecific and ignores a lot of fields, so I don't really see that as a specific issue.

2. It may be UK-specific, but similar studies across the globe would yield similar results, I'm certain. Female Chemists may be another group underrepresented in STEM feminism.

I really don't think you can say that with such certainty, since they haven't.

3. Christina Hoff Sommers uses sources, something not every Feminist on the other side of the political spectrum can say. And just because you disagree with her some of the time, doesn't mean you will always disagree with her.
4. Ditto.
5. See above.

She often misrepresents them, makes disingenuous arguments, and I don't want to waste 15 minutes watching annoying propaganda videos. If you think there's something in them that's substantial and wasn't described in another one of your sources, please share.

6. Correct. That is why I feel STEM Feminism needs to do more to promote Female Biologists as role models for young women and girls.

Wait, why would you need more promotion if there's less of a gender disparity?

7. But why? What's wrong with Biology (or Mathematics for that matter)? Why not encourage children to learn more about the living world and how animals/human beings work? Or how numbers and geometry can be applied to real life?

Well, you know, I agree wholeheartedly as a biologist who likes math, but kids, parents, and teachers often don't for the reasons I outlined in the waffling paragraphs below the numbered list.

10. EDF's Pretty Curious campaign was designed to encourage women and girls into STEM careers, but it did not mention many female biologists.

It also didn't mention any female physicists tho?

11. It mentions Male students are also more likely to pursue engineering and technology fields, while female students prefer science fields, like biology, chemistry, and marine biology. Why deny their choices?

I must have missed that. It's not necessarily a free choice, though. There are forces that push women towards science and away from engineering and tech that are outside of simple preference.

15. But it is about how in societies where Gender Equality is well-established like the various Nordic countries, men and women STILL do different jobs. They have the choice to any job they want, but they chose by. So even if girls and women were as encouraged to get into other topics in STEM, the vast majority are still likely to want to be biologists.

I'm pretty sure its argument is that the Nordic model is the reason for that, not inherent differences between men and women.

Biologists are often looked down upon by scientists in other fields. While most of this is light-hearted banter, if this spreads to teens and children it could get ugly. Are girls who want to do engineering going to bully girls who like animals and want to be Vets or Marine Biologists? That's not a future I want for any children I may have.

That's an easy answer: no

Cekoviu wrote:Wtf UMN, explain yourself

DW, I reported him.

That's... really not necessary.

Stanmenistan wrote:I myself don't consider myself a feminist, but an Egalitarian. I known not all Feminists are radfem, but groups like TERFs are massive issue within the movement, not all female Feminists like men using the term feminist to describe their beliefs, and Feminist media critics sometimes seem to demonstrate a lack of research and/or ignorance about the things they are critiquing.

I know this is not the topic you wanted to rise, but still:

TERF's are not feminist, they just call themselves like that.
Men can be feminist too.

Cekoviu wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The fewer women in STEM the better.

Wtf UMN, explain yourself

STEM is terrible.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Wtf UMN, explain yourself

STEM is terrible.

but why should women specifically not do it
also, you're wrong

Cekoviu wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:STEM is terrible.

but why should women specifically not do it
also, you're wrong

Men shouldn't do it either.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:but why should women specifically not do it
also, you're wrong

Men shouldn't do it either.

ok

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Wtf UMN, explain yourself

STEM is terrible.

And what makes STEM terrible?

Stellar Colonies wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:STEM is terrible.

And what makes STEM terrible?

Requires a minimal amount of abstract thought.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:The fewer women in STEM the better.

lol

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:And what makes STEM terrible?

Requires a minimal amount of abstract thought.

Lmao, you've clearly never done STEM

Cekoviu wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Requires a minimal amount of abstract thought.

Lmao, you've clearly never done STEM

Observation and induction is not abstract thought, it is a lower order of thinking.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Lmao, you've clearly never done STEM

Observation and induction is not abstract thought, it is a lower order of thinking.

That is not all there is to STEM fields, my man

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Lmao, you've clearly never done STEM

Observation and induction is not abstract thought, it is a lower order of thinking.

Hierarchies of thought, you say? How whimsical.