441–450 of 748 posts
Why do we care that there are equal women and men again? Why does representation actually matter again? I would find it more exciting to see a field with no representation because I could make a greater impact! This whole ideology of having representation everywhere is very dumb and conformist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because countries where women are dominated by men both legally and culturally, have higher rates of birth, crime, poverty, etc., than countries where women have a level of social mobility similar to men.
Current patriarchal, near-totalitarian societies have huge percentages of women going into STEM because for an ambitious, smart, strong woman in that environment it's one of the few paths to independence and status obtained through a well paying STEM job. Countries that are more egalitarian and have more social mobility have STEM percentages that are decreasing as the same society becomes more egalitarian over time b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SWE at FAANG is only a minor, frankly irrelevant, portion of STEM. Most people in STEM cannot transition to being a FAANG SWE. In fact, the OP article of this thread is about progression in an academic career, which doesn't pay well unless you become a full professor at a research uni. First time you break low 6 figures in this career is when you become assistant prof in early/mid 30s.
Surgeons, McKinsey management consultants, partners at big law firms, etc., are all tiny slices of much larger, lower-compensated workforces too. And considering how many tens of thousands of engineers the big tech companies have each , the top slice in our industry isn't that small.
Thanks, Karen Morenz, for providing a unified, panoramic view of the ways that the standard academic career progression short-changes many female scientists, even if each step along the way seems to make sense. It's worth taking a look at three other professions with long, high-intensity pathways from apprentice to master --all of which have been wrestling with the same challenges. They are management consulting, law…
I agree with this and the subtlety of the OP’s argument. There is clearly a problem, there are clearly many contributors, I have personally seen The OP situation play out with my female friends/colleagues in STEM (and other “high power” sectors). This does NOT discount that sexism still is a problem nor that there may be cultural/societal norms that influence the family planning issue. It’s a complicated issue, it ne…
I think where you find big gender gaps in career paths you are looking at awful jobs.
I think the author buried the lede here. My biggest takeaway from the article is that you'd have to be an absolute sucker to work in academia given how poorly you'll be treated. Each person that puts up with this only makes the problem worse, giving at least tacit approval to the status quo. If folks were to start opting out of academia in larger numbers for jobs in private industry, schools would be forced to improv…
My scientific career ended when I did a back of the envelope calculation on how much I would be paid per hour of expected work as a post doc. It was less than minimum wage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Men are hardwired to ascend to the top of the hierachy so they can access all the women. That's why male billonaires will risk their fortune to make another billion. Women are not rewarded biologically for being the top 2% in their industry. It's almost as if the higher women climb career wise the fewer dating options they have because women tend to want men that are even higher on the totem pole. Outside of a score…
Oh, here comes the evolutionary psychology nonsense. The world doesn't revolve around dating. And what about lesbians? Do they benefit from being in the top 2%, according to your logic? They would still "access all the women" It is also a bit disturbing that yoh believe being a billionaire gives you access to all the women.
Why not? All of evolution is derived from it.
The author is missing the forest for the trees. She argues that a specific kind of sexism (harrassment) is not sufficient to explain why so many women are forced out of their careers in STEM academia. She argues that the real reason is that those women want to start a family and they can't do both at once. She herself is considering leaving academia to start a family (she wants to have two or three children). Yet she…
The Swedish government order a study a few years ago in order to explain why the teacher profession are so gender segregated. The study found that initially the applications are almost 50/50 men and women, but then every year men start to leave. Once graduated and starting to work, every year men are a few times more likely to leave the profession than women. They even called it a leaky pipe.
They had multiple explanation in order to explain it, like how more academic focus rather than pedagogic helps retain men, and how higher salaries might help, and they also did similar to this study and asked the men who left why they did so. A lot of answers were that the profession did not fit their life, they felt the environment to be alien and uncomfortable, and they didn't feel like they fit in the work culture.
What the study also found was that the remaining male teacher that did stay tended to enter specialties such as PE and STEM subject, and away from subjects like langue and social studies. Many who left did so for similar profession outside of the education system such as sport.
So here we have women and men, both being described as a leaky pipe, both leaving at similar rates, both describing similar reasons for leaving, both finding specialties where they are not a minority. Could there be a common theory rather than two separate theories to explain this?
And the government study had such suggestion. There is research that is now about 50 years old that observed that people who are in an environment as a minority does not feel same confidence in themselves as those being part of the majority. When faced with a failure such as a missed exam, and making a decision to continue, being part of a majority increase the probability of the person continuing. The government study suggested that if you apply this theory over the time frame of a teacher career from the point of student to being a long term employee, what you get is a leaky pipe. It also suggested the solution that mentor ship programs helps in reducing this.
I also recall that a while back a women in IT imitative that said that of all their work, what had actually produced results was their mentor program. Seems like a pretty good evidence to me, and as a universal theory it seems pretty good explanation to explain the situation for both men and women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree it is sexism. It is the simple fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. This guarantees that there will be asymmetry between the genders regardless of the social engineering that is attempted. There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. > Sexism also harms men. Yes it does. But this is not one of those circumstances. However that i…
Bad take! There's no distinction between "biology" and "social engineering". Our biology underpins us having these discussions. Our biology underpins our society. Our biology underpins our thinking that things can be better. Our biology encourages us to improve our own quality of life and that of others in ever larger social groups. Everything we do is true to our biology.