Live data from Hacker News

The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

theatlantic.com

331–340 of 630 posts

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you know, if the question is "Why are there so few women in STEM?", then specifically asking women might make some sense...

I understand, but it's referencing the environment in a workplace that applies to both sexes not just women. Her complaint may have also applied to the men there, so really we should get both sides opinion shouldn't we?

That's fair. Her comments about her country of origin include "patriarchal BS at the workplace", which is gender-specific, but her complaints about the US were "the jobs suck, the environments suck and people are assholes at these jobs". The first two may (or may not) be felt more strongly by women in the same circumstances. The last one may (or may not) actually be different for women. But you'd have to ask both men and women to find out.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#332
post #323
post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As to the men being jerks/toxic etc argument... I think its a lot more complicated than this. Yes, men and women can be jerks. The bigger issues seem to be when a team is 80%+ one gender or another, and the issues aren't about "being mean" the issues are about the dominant group being blind to and then not accommodating the nondominant group's needs. A huge problem is that we have a lot of 6 person tech teams with…

The same is true is in fields dominated by women, such as education

And lots of people are investing lots of time and effort into trying to fix that problem in education, healthcare, etc.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#333

This! I have said this so many times and all my girl friends hate me for it! I also believe in gender segregated schools(after HS and at university level). I am not advocating gender segregation but just gender segregated education. This is only a BS theory of mine..and so I am trying to work it into my hobby fiction writing. Please allow me to test it here for opinions. I think that in formative years, children shou…

Work places discriminating based on gender would be terrible. There shouldn't be "male only" work places just like there shouldn't be "female only" work places. This would be a regression to the dark ages of grouping and separating people based on biological identity, not a good idea and honestly not helpful. There is zero evidence that shows these ideas actually make students or working environments healthier and mo…

Well..we could always give it a try as an experimental space and see if it works. No harm in learning more. Obviously it’s not the dark ages anymore. Why shouldn’t we adopt practices and check what works if it makes the world a better happier place?

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every woman I know with a genuine and deep interest in STEM subjects has had to deal with some level of toxic/sexist/whatever stuff in their life, and they persevered and dealt with it because they weren't going to let it get in the way of their passion. I grew up in an era when kids interested in STEM were "nerds" and were harassed, denigrated, and had lower social status. This changed when Bill Gates made his fir…

Was Almost Live the source of the skit "Studs from Microsoft"? Microsoft used to ship that skit as a demonstration video on their Microsoft Video API MSDN CDs. EDIT: Found a Raymond Chen blog entry confirming that the skit was indeed from Almost Live -- and it featured Bill Nye.

Yup. Bill Nye was a regular on the show before he was famous.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#335

This! I have said this so many times and all my girl friends hate me for it! I also believe in gender segregated schools(after HS and at university level). I am not advocating gender segregation but just gender segregated education. This is only a BS theory of mine..and so I am trying to work it into my hobby fiction writing. Please allow me to test it here for opinions. I think that in formative years, children shou…

> I think that in formative years, children should not be gender segregated, but when rubber hits the road at specialized and advanced education, it’s better if there is gender segregation because there is so much competition and rivalary between genders when both are at peak reproductive phase.

That's probably the right general idea, but I think you have the time frame wrong. Separate classes starting around 5th grade (10 years old), joining back after high school.

I base this on brain development stages. After several years of childhood, your brain starts reorganizing itself. It prunes a bunch of connections, and strengthens others. This processes takes several years. It generally starts earlier in girls, around 10 or 11 years old, and later, around 15, in boys.

So starting around age 10 or 11, we have boys and girls of the same age at significantly different stages of brain development, which I suspect means that teaching methods that are best for the boys aren't best for the girls, and vice versa. Hence, separate classes would be better.

Once it starts in boys, the initial changes are more rapid than they were in the girls, so boys do catch up although in some areas it does take a long time. So probably no need to separate classes by gender at college or beyond.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#336
post #325
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, a lot of people are saying that sexism is the cause of disparity in those cases. It's a commonplace observation that sexism harms men as well as women. Historically, the professions you're alluding to have been closed to women by men . So for example, the reason that women couldn't serve in the military until relatively recently is not that women used their power and influence within society to get a pass o…

I'd hope if women had thought about the serving example they would have made the same choice out of a sensible respect for setting up the future. A society that keeps their women from dying needless deaths has a reproductive advantage over societies that send them into the meat grinder - the protective society can produce more children after the conflict. From a quick and lazy glance at some statistics [0] losing a y…

>Men didn't like the idea because it is an objectively bad idea in an era where population really mattered.

This is an argument that's rarely if ever been used against allowing women to serve in the military. I think it's the argument that you'd like people to make rather than an argument that people have actually historically made.

More broadly, if you see women primarily as baby machines, then military service should be the least of your worries when it comes to fertility.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends who you ask, but typically not. STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (ie the 'M' isn't 'medicine', which is what a lot of people think).

Right I definitely knew it was math (have 2 engineering degrees myself :) )...but still assumed it was commonly assumed to fall on the spectrum of STEM (definitely on the opposite end from say...physics...but still on the spectrum). How can anyone get a qualifying score on the MCAT without significant exposure to science? Disclaimer: I'm definitely coming at this from a U.S. point of view which someone mentioned in a…

Some branches of medical research are basic sciences (eg endocrinology), and some are applied sciences (those broadly construed as 'health science', eg dietetics). But the practice of medicine in a clinical setting (healthcare) is both a science and an art (ie a skill learned by practicing it), and I think most would say that the knowledge it requires is scientific but much of the day-to-day work is an art.

So people tend to disagree about where to put medicine. But overall, most major public institutions in the US don't include medicine in STEM:

* US Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) -- No. (https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2007/spring/art04.pdf)

* US Department of Commerce (Economics and Statistics Administration) -- No. (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522129.pdf)

* NSF -- No. "The National Science Foundation is a United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering."

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#338
These comments are wild and the headline is not great. I know this is a contentious issue and that people like to armchair philosophize about stuff like this, but I think the study conclusions warrant a lot of critical attention before you say anything about "equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome".

First off: this is one study. No matter where you fall on gender politics, I wouldn't hang anything too seriously on a single paper. Obviously gender discrimination has been a historical cause of the gender STEM gap; so are we saying that we've solved that particular problem? Is there still room to improve? How much room? To me it seems naive to assume the first one without lots of evidence, and this paper is not that.

Second: the regression shown in the article doesn't seem great. For one thing: there's a small cluster of countries with pretty high X values, and pretty low Y values which suggests that they have relatively high leverage over the results and should probably be excluded. If you cover up UAE, Tunisia, Algeria, and Turkey does the regression line make any sense at all? To me it seems way too steep, ie. leverage. (Maybe the authors talk about this in the paper, I can't get behind the paywall). Also my priors would be that there are a number of country- and regional-level effects at work for an issue like this. It would be way more informative if the authors were to perform subgroup regressions by region of the world, cultural factors, ecnomic factors, etc. It's very possible, for example, that these two variables have an opposite correlation within region, education system, etc, but appear to have a negative correlation on aggregate. Simpson's Paradox is real and can cut many ways.

Third: choice of metric. Per the article """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""" This could be caused by a lot of things, but this suggests to me that the "Global Gender Gap" metric may not be giving us the whole picture. I think it's real hasty to draw basically any conclusions about eg. the US STEM culture based on this study. When the results suggest a paradox like this, I think it calls for looking at a variety of metrics to see if the same results are borne out repeatedly.

tl;dr there's a lot of research on the gender STEM gap, and a lot of people shooting from the hip in these comments.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#339
post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a woman, and this pervasive opinion that women are leaving STEM fields because of toxic behavior feels more sexist to me than anything else. It seems to me that if you have a genuine passion for STEM stuff, it takes a lot more than a bad environment to completely redirect your career path. Every woman I know with a genuine and deep interest in STEM subjects has had to deal with some level of toxic/sexist/whateve…

> this pervasive opinion that women are leaving STEM fields because of toxic behavior feels more sexist to me than anything else I don't think it is sexist at all to claim that some people would not want to be in a field because of its hostile work environment. I sure wouldn't. Factually debatable? Sure. But sexist? > It might sound harsh, but I don't feel terribly concerned about keeping these displaced women in STE…

To further complicate the matter, the idea of a "bad" environment is relative.

I've been on many all-male programming teams. Played football in high school.

From my experiences, those men tend to make fun of, poke, prod, and occasionally fight their way to agreement.

Comments were very direct. Abrasive at times. But usually got straight to the point.

I don't think I ever thought of any of it as needing "fixing". Quite the contrary, I think those men loved those other men.

But I could see someone of a different disposition being shocked at the crudeness, the brashness of it all and possibly thinking "it's toxic". It could be conflicting if someone wanted to participate in the team activity, but their approach didn't align with the existing members.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#340

People ask me how The Atlantic differs from Harper's. Here is a good example. Harper's would _not_ run an article that would even suggest a crack in the framework of leftist orthodoxy. But noting the date of the article, would this article be published now that Mrs Jobs is at the helm? Perhaps not...

> People ask me how The Atlantic differs from Harper's.

They do?

Really?

Post reply on HN