Inequality in sciences?

Why are there so few women in science, engineering, and business? It's an unfortunate fact but it's definitely true, the question remains "how did this come to pass"? obviosly there are many different factors but identifying the major ones is important. Some people(mostly men) think that, for some reason, women are just *worse* at heavily quantitative disciplines like math and engineering. Unfortunately studies showing that women tend to perform worse at relevant cognitive tasks show only very slight variation, the highest I've ever seen in a respectable study was a 10% difference while the difference in number of researchers in many fields is more like a 50% or higher difference. Since in both cases we're dealing with averages this is not the trend we'd expect to see if differences were purely because of differences in cognitive ability. A related topic is nonwhite people in scientific disciplines, although IMO that is a much more complex topic. Anyway, this is the place to go to advocate for your favorite sociological theory.

global institutionalized encultured sexism and racism what's confusing about this?

>>8104 cant just explain it off with a few boogeyman words, you're gonna have to try harder than that

>>8104 My girlfriend would smack you in the face :o) Probably stomp on your head too.

Maybe women just tend to dislike quantitative discipline. My class is full of feminists (idk if that's relevant), but even them don't want to study math-related topics. Yes, you can point to sociological factors of that, actions have causes, people do not grow like a mushroom out of the earth, for they stand in continuity with their time. But that's only useful if women are not satisfied, so the current situation can be changed. Are women really repressed or they just choose to avoid natural sciences?

Analyze how male and female children are normed to fit cookie-cutter models of behavior called "genders" and you'll have one smaller part of the answer. Then look into socioeconomic stratification and you'll get the root of the problem. Basically men have more money and thereby have an easier time spending years studying for a science degree, while women are treated as unthinking property across most of the planet (arranged marriages), or if your demographic is that of a developed economy as if though they are obliged to relegate themselves to simpler career prospects (daycare, cleaning, assistant, etc.) due to being expected to eventually being the primary caretaker of their child/children. Arranged marriages are eradicated with the spread of capitalism which prioritizes economic activity at the loss of tradition (in this case turning the stay-at-home mom into a business-woman, competing for the prized role as an exploiter), while the second problem (normed to prioritize social over scientific work) I personally can't think of a way around, other than the eventual technological revolution of ex vitro human reproduction. Hopefully we'll manage to have a social revolution transcending production for profit in exchange for production for use because if we don't then we're gambling with private corporations dictating the evolution of the genome and the human population as-is. Analyzing how corporations treat workers today there would be incentive for them to try to modify homo sapiens, sapiens away from social classes and towards the biological castes of of ants. Here capital holders' material hoarding would take on physiological dimensions only they could dream up, at the relative expense of worker-humans, soldier-humans, etc. But at that point we must've gotten so deep into techno-narcissist empire-building that we exhaust the last remaining resources that previously kept our biosphere from going completely haywire (for our preservation as an apex superorganism) that it could be the final break. Hopefully the next apex animal, adapted to drinking water+plastic, breathing air+nuclear debris, etc., will be able to steer their social evolution in a less pathetic direction. Us glorified chimpanzees really are screwing ourselves up. >TL;DR gender is a by-product of a larger issue, read about social class to get the bigger picture of why distinctions like "gender", "race", "hetero/bi/homo" are even 'relevant' categories that your present experience is so saturated with. Underneath these abstractions lie the economic incentive of the market to advertise more thorough-going, to always grow, always expand. You're German-Aryan master race? Great! Have some Fanta, and some Hugo Boss suits. You're a pansexual otherkind? Great! Have some futanari fursuits and Facebook pronouns. Existing simultaneously: proprietors of golden toilets on the one hand and malnourished, homeless people stabbing random passer-bys to sell their smartphone for money to buy food or drugs. Either way stimulating the economy so a parasite can get one more golden toilet. Because he's bored.

>>8102 I think it's possible that women are simply less interested in general in these types of disciplines. If it's just because that they don't want to, then I don't see how it's a problem.

male workplaces are more hospitable to men. female workplaces are more hospitable to women. in a word: tradition. that's the "cause". i'm honestly not sure why tech always gets singled out in this argument. it seems like pretty much all of the best paying or most prestigious occupations are male-dominated. doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect, scientist, engineer, etc. that tells me that this under-representation is caused by some underlying force, not something specific to tech. i'm not going to make the "why aren't there more female soykaf-shovelers out there?" argument because this is all clearly about wanting equal representation in upper-class white collar jobs. I haven't made up my mind because there are so many possible ways to draw in the causal links. do "female jobs" pay less because female work is valued less by society? or do they pay less because they are easier? do women avoid accounting because it doesn't interest them, or because the male-dominated work culture is hostile to them? afaik the party line is something like "women are not interested in these jobs because they are culturally conditioned to not find them appealing". kind of like how men are culturally conditioned not to wear dresses, but if you did a survey, most men would simply say "i don't wear dresses because i have no desire to". thats why there are all those summer camps and whatnot that teach girls how to program (again, i have no idea why it always seems to be tech). if i had to guess at some underlying cultural force, i'd say men tend to follow money more than women do. probably because of conditioning related to the traditional "provider" role. think about the inverted problem of trying to get more men to become high school teachers. you could argue that "childcare" somehow doesn't appeal to men on an instinctual level, but if i wanted to get more of them into teaching i'd just raise the pay. apparently monetary incentive isn't as important to women.

Why are there so few men in nursing, teaching, and child care? It's an unfortunate fact but it's definitely true, the question remains "how did this come to pass"? obviosly there are many different factors but identifying the major ones is important. Some people(mostly women) think that, for some reason, men are just *worse* at heavily quantitative disciplines like caring for other people and socializing. Unfortunately studies showing that men tend to perform worse at relevant socializing tasks show only very slight variation, the highest I've ever seen in a respectable study was a 10% difference while the difference in number of researchers in many fields is more like a 50% or higher difference. Since in both cases we're dealing with averages this is not the trend we'd expect to see if differences were purely because of differences in socializing ability. A related topic is nonblack people in socializing disciplines, although IMO that is a much more complex topic. Anyway, this is the place to go to advocate for your favorite sociological theory. this thread talks more about your biases and insecurities(especially about cognitive abilities lol) than a wide scale commentary on society(I assume you tried to shoe horn "patriarchy" somewhere in there but that you didn't succeed at it without you sounding off like a raging feminist). We live in somewhat leveled out playing field in 21st century and try to value other people on their merit. Whether you are a man or a woman or black transexual midget you should get a go in life and get rewarded for doing a good job. Don't you agree OP? Or do you think we should lower the quotas for men and force women into a career that they don't want? Yea, thought so. Like a fuarrrking broken record player with you feminists.

>>8116 The irony in your post is that patriarchal standards have effected men, same as women, in many regards to this topic, and explain in many ways why there are few men in nursing, teaching, and child care positions.

>>8117 Affected* And yea, you are just reaching now. Maybe you should stop pushing your worldview on other people and have them be whatever they want? In sweden (the most progressive country on the world) there is still huge ratio of men vs women in careers like nursing and engineering. Why do you think that is?

>>8118 Because men are often indoctrinated at young ages to believe that those positions are effeminate and for "caretakers", which in most society's, seen as the role of a woman. No brainer. Why do you think people call male nurses gay and soykaf? It's patriarchal and undeniably so.

>>8118 Also, no one has ever implied forcing people into workforces in this thread, so I am unsure why you continue to go on this tyrade about "letting people do what they want", it's literally someone creating discussion about sociological theories about gender inequalities in certain fields. (You)r reactionary response chose to ignore that entirely and roll with this idea that for some reason, anyone is suggesting "forced representation" in these fields.

>>8119 Yea...."no brainer" for someone who fills in every hole of question with her bias. The argument was that Sweden doesn't have those kind of societal brainwashing and that they are pretty lax on such things therefore such "pressures" shouldn't be existing there right? More men should be nurses in Sweden then, no? The reality is that men like more things and women like more people jobs. The reason people call male nurses gay is just plain and simple stereotyping based on experience which trickled down into culture as an anecdote that went in movies and stories. I don't do that because I am not a blind sheep of a man that was brainwashed like you assume all men are. And that is pretty condescending to say that all men are braindead and just go along with the herd. The reason why OP complained of businessman and engineers isn't because they don't want more female coal miners and more female construction workers but because they are jealous and insecure about their cognitive abilities so they make a simple conspiracy theory to fill up their "why?" just like you. Let people be what they want to be and stop pushing them to be what they aren't on this victim narrative. Men aren't victims of societal brainwashing. Women aren't victim of circuimstance. We live in 21st century where only merit counts. If you want to be a male nurse or woman businessperson so be it.

>>8120 >gender inequalities If you phrased the question of the thread I would have no issue, but crying over engineer jobs? Pretty petty and personal matter. Also to imply some kind of "inequality" you are trying to imply inequity? That might not always be the case. Men are taller than women on average? Inequality not inequity. Bell curve for male intelligence is more tappered off than female (more idiots and geniuses but same average IQ)? Inequality not inequity. More males are attracted to particular career than females? Inequality not inequity. Not everything needs to be 50/50. Why do you think men and women are different only from neck down? But seriously, if you phrased the question in "why is there male and female seperate chess tournaments?" I would get much more in detail but you obviously don't care about that and just want to peddle your "theory".

>>8121 >The reason people call male nurses gay is just plain and simple stereotyping based on experience which trickled down into culture as an anecdote that went in movies and stories. I don't do that because I am not a blind sheep of a man that was brainwashed like you assume all men are. And that is pretty condescending to say that all men are braindead and just go along with the herd. Yikes, I'll stop replying now. You are actually delirious.

>>8123 Stereotypes exist for a reason. Gender differences are created naturally not culturally. Culture is created on basis of natural insticts and not created out of this air. Not everything needs to be equal.

>>8124 To some extent, this is the truth I used to think about this,but I stopped after I wrote a comment on The Verge that got me derezzed. I always think about that even though I don't really care to post in the Verge comments. I basically made points that were logical and instead of anyone commenting on what I wrote I was just outright derezzed. I can't remember what I wrote, but I think one of the points I made was about sports. Women in sports get paid much less then men. A woman in the American national soccer league could be paid as little between 10-20k. On average all female sports have less audience then male sports. So what do you think people say? More men should watch these sports. Yet, in the US the population is about 50/50 male/female. So, if only half of women started watching and attending female sporting events you would see the numbers about the same as male sports. This would lead to women getting paid more. But you don't. Why? Because they build female sports assuming women would be just as interested as men in sports if they had their own leagues. This turns out to not be true. Women just aren't as interested in sports. Those are the kinds of points I made, and I was derezzed from a site. Not because I was being harsh or attacking anyone. But because I was pointing out something logical that makes sense. It isn't a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of what is important to someone. Women on average just don't have the same interests as men. This isn't a bad thing. A society needs people to function in different tasks in order to succeed. And I think people have lost that notion. Forcing women into a field they won't find happiness in makes no sense. Basically, just let people do what they want to do. I'm a guy and I have lost friends over the years because they just don't share the same interests as me. I can come on here and talk about different programming languages, art and literature. But in my real life I have few people that care for any of those things. A life built on the pursuit of knowledge is a hard one to live. And I think women, being more social on average can't deal with loneliness as well as men can.

I think it's pretty simple, no need to go too deep into it. But it's clear that men are more object orientated than women. Boys will gravitate more towards toys like trucks while girls will respond better to dolls. Now, it has to be said that there are exceptions but those exceptions reinforce a rule not negate it. It also doesn't mean that a girl can never be object orientated but there is a trend. If you want to use culture as an argument, a lot of cultural toys in the past were things like dolls for girls and more abstract toys for boys. I think it's very valid to say that our culture was based on the observations that our ancestors saw with young boys and girls. In the adult world, it would be easier to say that the big reason a lot of women aren't in STEM fields are kids. Women have the uterus not men, they are biologically designed to receive sperm, carry the baby to term, give birth, and then support it while it's weak and stupid. Not saying that's their only value but the second that women has a child, she can kiss that career good bye because men in her age group have no limitation. While she's on medical leave, those men are surpassing her.

>>8102 This thread looks perfect to wage slave Colttane Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA! http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX1GkAJdz_WF5Vyc2xUxZZw

>Some people(mostly men) think that, for some reason, women are just *worse* at heavily quantitative disciplines like math and engineering. Actually I'd say more women think so than men, especially before the age of 20. How many girls do you remember from high school bragging about their physics experiments at home, motorcycles they fix, robots they build? Even if they get into that stuff, it's probably happening later as in childhood it's mostly boy-toys related, and in teenage years it's irrelevant. Thus they end up choosing higher education not related to science or engineering and the prophecy fulfilled itself with boys filling those places. Notice that I didn't mention business, I see lots of women in business. It also may be related to how most women historically end up raising at least one child, which requires lots of empathy and a sort of "anything for baby" thinking which is usually detrimental in engineering or science decision making.

Let's examine this study again, the one that I posted in the last thread, in case some of you haven't seen it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909401/ Give it a quick skim, make sure you understand the references that I'm going to make in my argument. Done? Okay. The first argument that I'm going to make, before i even start, is that quantitative and math-heavy disciplines require a greater degree of spatial reasoning. Evidence for this can be found in the fact that when one studies math, you always have to use conceptual models in your head. You must think of a graph, how it changes as the input changes, you must be able to visualize these two-dimensional and three-dimensional changes. It's not limited to that, however, because even puzzle solving requires a great degree of spatial ability (See the VSWM tests within the study provided, if you don't believe me). That means that extremely math-heavy concepts, like algorithms, are also put underneath this umbrella. Additionally, programming often shares a link with problem solving, programming in nature is very puzzle-like and also pretty mathematics heavy. So, in conclusion to this argument, you should be able to understand that math-heavy and puzzle-heavy disciplines such as compsci, programming, engineering, mathematics, and science (to a lesser degree, unless you're talking hard sciences) all require a good spatial ability, to create models and abstractions within your head that will help you understand your own work. The second argument I'm going to make is that women are naturally less capable as spatial reasoning than men are. And before you get all butthurt and claim that I'm sexist, do me a favor and look at the study. Figure two fully supports my hypothesis that women are naturally less capable at spatial reasoning. One interesting thing you may find about Fig. 2 is that women were slightly better at the task S3. "Why are they better at S3?". Similar to what I said before this thread was made, the answer lies on the fact that men, on average, are much higher on the autistic spectrum. Classical symptoms of autism are, but are not limited to the following : Increased logic ability, increased puzzle-solving ability, increased spatial ability, decreased social awareness, decreased empathy. So, from this, you can conclude that the autism spectrum measures these tendencies. And men naturally score higher on the autistic spectrum--So that might point that men naturally have better spatial ability. I'm not done yet, though. Remember back to S3? I didn't quite get to why autism is an important puzzle piece to validating this seemingly unfitting piece of data. One characteristic of individuals with autism is that they are way worse than a neurotypical at judging distances (among other things) by sight. If you bothered to go back and read exactly what challenge S3 was, then it might start to make sense. Go ahead and do that if you haven't, I'm not going to spoonfeed you. And so from this seeming outlier, we have managed to support the results of the study (and more importantly, our hypothesis) even more. The conclusion of these two arguments is that women would naturally be less capable at disciplines that clearly require such a high degree of spatial ability. I shouldn't need to explain the thought process there, you should understand from this point on. >"But that can't make up for the inequality in sciences/engineering/mathematics! Surely some women would do these?" And some women do these. But to understand why so few women partake in these careers/hobbies, you must realize a few things first. The first thing is that a lowered spatial ability will mean that you won't be able to see the beauty of mathematics properly in the first place. This statement falls on the topic of interest--It wouldn't be hard to assume that not being able to see the spatial beauty of mathematics would make you less inclined to choose this as your major. Additionally, Very small limits on the roof of one's ability can make it nearly impossible to be truly competitive. The second thing is that, in general, a lower spatial ability puts you at a disadvantage to academic and job-market competitors. Who would want to go into a hobby/field that they were at a disadvantage in? This might imply that women, in general, understand that they have a disadvantage. I don't think they do, for clarification. It's also important to note that this is only a disadvantage, which could be overcome by hard work and studying. But, imagine the least mathematically-gifted person you know. Think from their perspective, as they watch math students fly through problems that they can't grasp correctly. That would be a little discouraging to them, no? Why would they want to do math? They don't even like it in the first place! Why would someone do something that they don't like and that they aren't good at? Sometimes, they do it just to prove that they can. I believe this is the reason that we see a significant amount of women in these fields at all. And finally, the one you've all been waiting for, social pressures. Yes, social pressures do play a role in women's selection of majors. Do they play a role larger than the two reasons listed above? I don't think so. In addition to this, we live during a time where many people hold the opinion that women should be able to do whatever they want. This cuts down on how much social pressures play into whether or not women should choose their major. I saw some people arguing that women have heard people be dismissive to them because of their gender, but everyone has had someone be dismissive to them before. And for some reason, I think that women are less likely to have people be rude to them in the first place. Just a guess. Anyways, there you have it. A beautiful argument for why the disparity exists, from the top down. I hope we can close the book on this soon.

>>8138 Oh, and additionally, if you look at the profile of "good orienters" vs "poor orienters", you notice that while poor orienters are typically better at S3 than their other tasks, good orienters are the opposite, and are worse at S3 than their other tasks. This would also seem to point that people with high functioning autism are more likely to be good orienters--and men are likely a higher proportion of "good orienters" because of the fact that they scored higher on all tests. Additionally, people with low spatial reasoning ability (that are more likely to be neurotypical) enjoy a high degree of ability to judge distances from sight. This portion of the test can be looked at blind to validate the connection of the study with the autism spectrum. Once you add gender into the equation, you would think that there would be more men sectioned off as "good orienters" due to the fact that they're more likely to be higher on the autism spectrum. And looking at the results of the study from Fig. 2, this hypothesis would be completely validated. The study itself defines "good orienters" vs "poor orienters", if you're interested in looking at that.

>>8138 You are wasting your time man. Feminists don't care about science, they care only about their ideology. Feminist ideology is above science to them. It's like arguing with creationists. The same result - zero. You can't convince someone who thinks that he already has all the answers and just keeps throwing nonsense arguments at you in a pathetic attempt to justify his preconceived believes.

>>8132 > most women historically end up raising at least one child, which requires lots of empathy and a sort of "anything for baby" thinking which is usually detrimental in engineering or science decision making Keep posting man. Your posts are truly a work of art - comedy to be specific.

video related https://youtu.be/DK6rqm2nCzM

>>8110 /thread Gender is a waste of time.

>>8141 think of the last woman you saw obsessed with math/science/programming/compsci

>>8110 >Basically men have more money and thereby have an easier time spending years studying for a science degree, while women are treated as unthinking property across most of the planet (arranged marriages), or if your demographic is that of a developed economy as if though they are obliged to relegate themselves to simpler career prospects (daycare, cleaning, assistant, etc.) Most female engineers are Indian, the most sexist backwards ass culture outside of Islam. Every female Indian engineer I have worked with so far had an arranged marriage. How does this fit into your women-cant-into-stem-because-oppression model? If anything it's the freedom of western culture that deters women from stem. Something I don't see mentioned yet is men are more motivated by competition. They will spend hours arguing on an anonymous image board to prove how smart they are. Women frankly have different priorities.

>>8146 You're right in saying that women in freer countries tend to avoid STEM, but that does not discount the effects socialization have on people. No respectable social scientist is saying that gender norms univariately determine a person's future, but that gender norms simply exist and some are unnecessary or harmful. Yes, you will hear, from time to time, some people exaggerating the effect that certain types of products may have on a child, but they are right in attempting to address the gender-biases we act out. It can be both nature and nurture, you know. The paper in question is this: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797617741719 Read the explanations section. It hypothesises that more conservative countries output more women in STEM because students are pressured into doing subjects they are the most strong at, whilst the west allows people to choose the one they enjoy the most instead (which may be subjects they are not as good at). I do feel like the internet gets too hung up on what ideologues say and as a consequence dismiss issues which might actually be deserving of concern. It's always best to look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.

>>8125 I think that the alarmingly high successful suicide rates in older men would prove that they cannot deal with loneliness, failure, and other feelings of defeat, which is a topic that has been discussed for many years now. But yes, I think women are more social than men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide#Differing_methods_by_gender

>>8146 >Most female engineers are Indian, the most sexist backwards ass culture outside of Islam. not him but discussing exceptions as if they'll blow the argument out of the water is generally not good practice. unless you want to subscribe to the belief that america should have guns because switzerland should. the west and india have very different cultures and push/pull factors so attempting to attribute it to a single cause (or lack thereof) is pretty retarded.

>>8148 >students are pressured into doing subjects they are the most strong at *pressured into subjects that are likely to result in financial success. fixed that for you.

Who cares. Anyone who's self esteem depends on what sort of mundane exercises their slavery consists of is a massive glitterboy. I suppose women should feel really down on themselves that they're not a lot of "quantitatively minded" desk-bound bean counters. Women don't get into technical fields because they don't have to in order to be socially/sexually buoyant; path of least resistance: success in technical fields takes massive time, energy investment relative to others. What, you think men get into engineering after a passion? A natural interest? No, they do so because it's "practical" i.e. "a reliable source of big money and bourgeois status."

>>8156 but many fields are not very lucrative at all. Physics, math, etc... very few people go into those fields just because they want lots of money, because there are far better ways to use quantitative reasoning to get lots of money. Those fields which are so unlucrative still have very large gender gaps.

>Why are there so few women in science, engineering, and business? Don't know and don't care. They should just stay out from where they don't belong. My experience with working with females is limited and only related to programming, but everyone women I've worked with either produces extremely low quality work or causes problems for the rest of the team which ends up slowing us down or causing internal conflict. Personally, I just don't want to work with women at all. >A related topic is nonwhite people in scientific disciplines They should stay out too.

Honestly, I just hate how racist/sexist people complain about how one race and gender is dominating the field while the other gender and races are barely represented. Meanwhile the non-racist people in the field are too busy running a meritocracy and keeping the world in a livable shape. Were they not racist/sexist, they would simply see "STEM-competent people work in STEM, non-STEM-competent people don't because they're non-competent and not willing to become competent".

>>8138 I don't 100% agree with your analysis, but at least it's well-reasoned. I think you're focusing too much on the sexual dimorphism aspect though. Most (all?) of us can probably agree that there is an appreciable difference between male and female psychology. This was even addressed in the OP. >Since in both cases we're dealing with averages this is not the trend we'd expect to see if differences were purely because of differences in cognitive ability. How would you respond to this? If there are cultural forces that exaggerate innate differences between the sexes, shouldn't they be addressed? Maybe you don't think so. I'm not even sure I think so. I'm just trying to clarify things a bit. When people talk about "social pressures" in this context, it isn't necessarily about harassment or sexism. It's pretty clear at this point that the answer to the question "why aren't more women in tech?" is "because they don't want to". So then you have to ask "why don't they want to?". You seem to think that women don't go into tech because, to put it bluntly, they aren't naturally good at it. Fine, that's plausible enough. It doesn't hold up so well if you start to generalize though. What does spatial reasoning have to do with being a lawyer, or a surgeon, or a CEO? Clearly there is some other force at work here. I'm not trying to say that psychological differences have nothing to do with it; I'm saying that it is one of many factors which can be addressed independently. In my view, chalking it all up to dimorphism and washing your hands of it is disingenuous. I think your argument explains why tech jobs have lower female representation than other high paying white-collar jobs, but it does not explain why women are underrepresented across the board when it comes to the highest-paying jobs in any industry. There's another interesting piece of the puzzle to consider (presented without comment because I'm honestly not sure what to make of it; it doesn't have anything to do with my argument). Women are dramatically over-represented at every level of higher education, by pretty much any metric (graduation rates, admission rates, application rates). There are more women graduating from college every year than there are men who even apply. Some say it has something to do with the equally vast over-representation of women in teaching. I think it can be mostly explained by the fact that men typically have better job prospects immediately after high school (i.e. manual labor and trade work) coupled with the male tendency to place greater importance on near-term financial security. Male college application rates fluctuate with economy, while female application rates have been going straight up since the '50s.

>>8110 >male and female children are normed to fit cookie-cutter models of behavior called "genders" Citation needed >men have more money and thereby have an easier time spending years studying for a science degree Citation needed >women are treated as unthinking property across most of the planet Citation needed >they are obliged to relegate themselves to simpler career prospects (daycare, cleaning, assistant, etc.) Citation needed >Arranged marriages are eradicated with the spread of capitalism which prioritizes economic activity at the loss of tradition Citation needed

>Why are there so few women in science, engineering, and business? It's a little bit about preference. Here in my country about 23% of the women are really interested in that courses, and just 8% of them passed trhought the exams to get into the college even tough more than 63% of the students here are women. It doesn't mean anyting to you? that's one of the major facts. By the way I've never seen nobody complaining about less than 25% of men when it comes to courses like pedagogia, enfermagem ou fisioterapia, fashion. We gotta keep in mind that men and women are not equal at all (biological thing included, of course), and sciences are tend to be more reached by men's inrerest. The funny fact is I've never seen nobody complaining about the ''female at job market'' problem when it comes to heavy manual work like sanitary sewage, construction, metallurgical work, mining, etc. LET'S FIGHT! WE NEED TO ELIMINATE THE GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN IN ALL THOSE JOBS TOO, HUH?

>>8163 >pedagogia, enfermagem ou fisioterapia, I mean pedagogy, nursing or physiotherapy. Sorry about that.

>>8148 >Read the explanations section. It hypothesises that more conservative countries output more women in STEM because students are pressured into doing subjects they are the most strong at, whilst the west allows people to choose the one they enjoy the most instead (which may be subjects they are not as good at). Is your point that meritocracy is actually the answer to gender inequality? And the real enemy of feminism is feminism itself? That's an interesting idea. >>8154 >not him but discussing exceptions as if they'll blow the argument out of the water is generally not good practice. The argument was oppression of women e.g. through arranged marriages, force them out of stem. Pointing out that Indians treat their women like soykaf with arranged marriages and also have many women in stem is not an "exception" it actually does contradict the argument.

>>8163 I cannot think of any moral framework whatsoever that argues discriminated minorities should strive to close the gap with low-status & low-wage jobs. I'm genuinely curious what is the reasoning behind this, like how would it change the calculus if women were asked to work as miners?

>>8167 >I'm genuinely curious what is the reasoning behind this, like how would it change the calculus if women were asked to work as miners? It would be a step towards objective equality. Not me but I think the reasoning is feminism only waters one side of the lawn. If you want true equality you need to take some of the male burden as well, not just cherry pick the benefits. >discriminated minorities Oh boy.

>people ITT asking for citations for interpretations of data really makes me think

>>8140 Here's a good rule of thumb you can use no matter what topic you're discussing: Always do the opposite of what feminists tell you.

>>8111 I agree. I feel like these social engineers are often too simple minded to put their paws into the complex mess that is society. They pass off their opinions as fact, which is annoying, but what's more, they feel like they have the moral high ground, which is not only annoying, it's dangerous.

>>8123 yeah, stop replying, and also just stop trolling this chan

>>8148 >I do feel like the internet gets too hung up on what ideologues say and as a consequence dismiss issues which might actually be deserving of concern. It's always best to look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. This is true, however, to me it seems like OP is too deep into their ideology to engage in any meaningful conversation on the topic. When I read "men have more money, thus they can study science" I laughed out loud. OP's logic is not flawed, it's just not logic at all.

>>8157 physics is not unlicrative bro

>>8159 You're just as much of a meme as OP is.

>>8170 >f you want true equality you need to take some of the male burden as well This is very true. I have a beef with people claiming 'feminism is for equality' while the movement is named after (and pushes for) a specific demographic. You don't see feminists talking about the suicide gap, nor the homeless gap, or the prison time gap. The day I see a 'feminist' adressing these issues is the day I respect a feminist.

>>8176 They're basically saying that OP is trying to pass opinion for fact.

>>8334 You're going to be waiting a long time for that day. Feminism is best understood not as a social movement but as a lobbying organization, and perhaps also as a tool of the corporate elite's power. You should do some in-depth reading on the history of feminist activism to understand it better. Every single thing feminists have ever supported is designed to allow them to accumulate power at the expense of everyone else's rights, and they've infiltrated the media and the academic community to push their crap. OP has tellingly not said anything about the fact that those who oppose any given feminist policy have little to no voice in the media. How about some equality there?

>>8336 >>8334 >>8331 >>8328 >feminism blah blah Is nothing to concern yourself with. The more fake equality they reach, the fast they will hit a dead end. Their vision of it would lead to a collapse of society, so they can never achieve it. If you want to see what happens when women are in power look no further than Germany and Merkel.

>>8342 >Their vision of it would lead to a collapse of society Yes. >so they can never achieve it. Plenty of societies have collapsed because people who wanted to implement horrible policies achieved power and did it.

>>8343 >Plenty of societies have collapsed because people who wanted to implement horrible policies achieved power and did it. And I do not disagree with you there friend. I'm just cautiously optimistic that at a certain level before collapse either companies or law step in to stop it from happening. One of these two is already in prison. Women just make for the worst leaders. Remember Marissa Mayer, the CEO that killed Yahoo? We can only imagine what suffering was avoided by not having Hillary win the elections. Same goes for feminism, a diseased concept that will fail in the next 100 years in such a dramatic way that it won't be repeated soon. The endgame is of course total stagnation of births like in Japan, where males rather not have a partner. Employees in companies will get harder to replace as young talents are scarce.

>>8344 >We can only imagine what suffering was avoided by not having Hillary win the elections. Trump has done most of the same things Clinton would have. >Same goes for feminism, a diseased concept that will fail in the next 100 years in such a dramatic way that it won't be repeated soon. We don't have 100 years to wait. Society has already been pretty much completely destroyed by feminism. The failure you describe occurring in the next century will be the extinction of humanity. >The endgame is of course total stagnation of births like in Japan, where males rather not have a partner. This is already happening. You need people to be in relationships in order to create the next generation of humans, and if men want nothing to do with women because STEM careers are made unbearable by feminist HR cunts and all of the desirable options for a sexual partner have been outlawed, there isn't going to be a next generation.

>>8358 >STEM careers are made unbearable by feminist HR cunts Exactly, in my country government jobs are given to the girl if a male and female person apply for the same job. Even if the guy had better qualification. That is like a placebo version of equality. Humanism: Same rights for everyone, not more rights. Feminism: Only rights for me and my posse.