What keeps women from going into science...

What keeps women from going into science? It is often said that women are under-represented in STEM fields because they are discouraged from going into them, but how exactly? As far as I can tell, very few people think female scientists are less capable than male scientists. In most shows with STEM characters, there is almost always a female scientist/doctor. There is generally a lot of encouragement for women to go into science in the media and pop culture. Also, if we keep on telling young aspiring female scientists that STEM is supposedly a field where they're "unusual/special/minority/discriminated against" due to their gender, won't that just discourage them and make them want to go into some other field where they will face supposedly fewer barriers?

Is it really just that women have less interest in science and math, and "systematic gender inequality" is not to blame?

Other urls found in this thread:

aps.org/programs/education/statistics/womenmajors.cfm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>"Math is hard, so I went into nursing."

That's why.

>Is it really just that women have less interest in science and math, and "systematic gender inequality" is not to blame?
yes

in scandinavia where there is virtually no gender inequality there are 20 male engineers for every female engineer and 20 female caretakers for every male caretaker (larger ratios than in places with less gender inequality)

when you remove environmental factors the biological interests maximize

(larger ratios than in places with less gender equality)*

they're just too stupid

People can only dream about being as virgin as you

tfw you're so autistic you can't get a fucking joke.

They really are too stupid though. Even women's contribution to modern science has been mediocre.

Doing jokes about women being stupid is retarded too

>I will just call him a virgin lolz xD
t.roastie

How? It's funny when viewed from the right angle. That's all a joke requires. Judging something purely based on the type of content contained and not the content itself is pretty stupid. Furthermore, I said autistic not retarded you fucking mongoloid, you're supposed to mention the same thing in comparisons.

There is more variability in men than in woman. IQ, height, ability to build muscle, VO2max etc all vary much more in males so it is to be expected that at both extremes of ability males will be over represented.
Woman are the average, "good enough" sex.

Steven pinker had pretty good talk about the biological reasons for the lack of interest/succes of women in stem

This board really is full of 15 year olds isn't it

Care to summarize some of his points?

He talked about the more geniuses, more idiots stuff, and that while women are statisticaly better at mental calculation, men are better at abstract thinking. He also said that men are better at "spatial reasoning" (ie. mental rotation), and connected this with famous scientist recounting their way of invention as abstract shapes interacting.*
The main point wasn't exactly your question, he wanted to prove that it's not purely social pressure, and only touched ligthly on the specifics.

*I don't really remember this part clearly desu

To git gud at science and math you have to dedicate a shitload of time to it. Autistic males are more likely to be able to do that since men are lonelier than women.

Interesting, thanks for the summary.

This is another interesting point. To see it more clearly try and remember how males and females babies and children were treated difference when you were growing up. Males are worthless until they get good at something or do something. Women are called cute and adorable when they so much as smile.
It's an interesting thing, and no surprise that autistic males can't communicate with women in any serious capacity

Surely you're not implying that all scientists are autistic. That would be idiotic - the viewpoint of someone who's never met an actual scientist.

It's just a buzzword you fucking autist

To be fair he says men are lonelier than women which is true.
Autism is a synonym for 'not-Chad' anyway

It's just that men have a harder time distracting themselves from science with social happenings and it reflects on their success. A girl finishes studying and she goes out with her boyfriend she found easily, while the man finishes studying and does more research as a hobby in free time that he has.

I have nothing insightful to contribute, but I've personally witnessed a lack of women in STEM fields.

I used to study engineering when I was 16 and all the STEM fields were on the edge of campus - There was no reason for anyone but the people studying in my building to egress through there, since all the communal areas were in the center of the grounds.

Needless to say there were practically no women, since biology/medicine/psychology were housed in other areas.

Strangely enough the only woman that was noteworthy was my metallurgy teacher.

My uni used to have as many as 5 female faculty in their small physics department. As they left the school, the number of female physics students fell. Today there is just 1 adjunct female professor and 1 girl who's only a sophomore- but I don't count anyone as a "physics major" until they've actually made it through the entry level physics shit.

The school I'm at at least has a woman that teaches all of the first year programming classes and another woman that teaches the first year of circuits. Both are insanely smart, awesome, and inspiring people to be around but there are still a lack of girls in the classes. During the first quarter the amount of girls is nearly 50% but that drops to around 20% by the end of the 3rd quarter (and even lower in the circuits class)

I think part of it has to do with male and female interests. Men are better at perceiving movement and at spatial reasoning, so engineering, chem, and physics come naturally to them. Women are natural gatherers and caretakers and thus are interested in plants and animals, which is why the distribution of women and men in biology is much more even than in the harder sciences.

Women are scared of math and the concept of days spent entirely working in a lab or a project

so many of them flee for softer fields

that is the biggest reality and simply the way things are. There is no other reason for girls to go through K-12 categorically outdoing boys in grades and school performance, under the guidance of largely female teachership which has been proven to favor girls, and then suddenly drop off once it's time to check off your college major on your application

Any and all attempts to insinuate that anything "systemic" or institutional exists is pure, groundless bitching and if anything we should be complaining about the fact that boys are getting totally shafted in K-12 where they don't even have a choice

add in the fact that men are driven by a desire to impress and attract women with achievement and income while women have no such impetus

it's pretty significant

Women are meant to care for the home and raise children. Not even trolling, 95% of the time that's what they're happier doing.

Of course, the exceptions to this rule should be encouraged to go into science/math/eng but they shouldn't be granted special privileges and they shouldn't complain about not being promoted if they choose to take 5 years off to raise children.

>pic somewhat unrelated

I believe it has to do with a herd-mentality (and a bit of deep-rooted stupidity). Females growing up tend to be social nimrods, focusing more on interactions with their peers than anything. (Kind of makes sense - they're not interested in advancing scientific models, they want a man to hump them so they can take care of children as a stay-at-home-mother.) As long as they're accepted by their peers I've seen that they tend to move along this trend which usually results in an easy career path with high rewards (with regards to both interactions with other people and monetarily). However, socially-ostracised females tend to find interest in things like art/literature in a way to be social or excel without the need for other people. Let's be honest - most females suck major dick (figuratively and literally, some of the women in STEM have no fucking business being there...absolute pseudointellectuals who couldn't read a proper acedemic paper or do basic maths/physics/chemistry to save their pathetic lives) in any STEM-related field, most just don't have the drive/care/deep-seated inquiring nature one needs to succeed in most STEM fields. Then you have autistic weirdos who were either traumatised as children, goaded by their parents who work in STEM, have no talent in humanities, or just peculiar in the fact that they actually enjoy and respect science(s) as a whole (who obviously have something wrong with them - you just can't tell what it is yet) working in the field. It is quite the pathetic situation as a whole, but in all honesty I like it this way. Any change would probably result in a huge influx of stupidity in my field and I would prefer that to happen some time after I die, not while I'm in the position to have to deal with it.

t.autistic female in STEM

are u cute

>autistic female

cool history bro

>Is it really just that women have less interest in science and math, and "systematic gender inequality" is not to blame?
yes

you forgot your trip kurigohan

Women don't want to become underpaid or unemployed.

>he wasn't called cute and adorable and handsome as a baby/child
Don't project your terrible childhood onto everyone else.

Your don't seriously actually really believe that autistic way of thinking applies to most, or even the average man right? A guy finishes work/studying and he goes home and watches some tv or plays some sports or goes to get something to eat or whatever other normalfag thing there is to do.

Sure explains why there are so many historically important normalfags in stem!

>Surely you're not implying that all scientists are autistic

no, but science itself is as autismal as it comes. most of STEM is doing tedious ass paperwork and sitting in front of a computer or piece of equipment all day without really interacting with anyone else. women hate that shit. its why women get through STEM school just fine, but are the least likely to end up in their field.

Only reason it was useful to mention is because interactions between men and women are perceivably differently depending on what side you happen to be born on. Not to mention interactions within our gender are quite different. I get a different perspective and am privy to a lot of what goes on in their minds.
Also, my observations might be misconstrued as {sexism,whatever is happening above} if I don't mention it, which is not my intention. I wish to present an unbiased viewpoint from what I've observed throughout my life.

>
>most of STEM is doing tedious ass paperwork and sitting in front of a computer or piece of equipment all day without really interacting with anyone else.
You mean, like a secretary or a seamstress or those people that transcript at court meetings or do other typewriting jobs. Do women really hate these things?

>As long as they're accepted by their peers I've seen that they tend to move along this trend which usually results in an easy career path with high rewards

Doesn't this fall under the 'systemic inequality' thing? People tend to interpret that phrase as inequality in academia but you can't just separate that from the rest of the world. Men and women are treated completely different by our society and it's silly to think that despite this there will be the same in academic parts of life. I'm not really sure what my point is I guess I'm just annoyed that people keep arguing about STEM while ignoring the bigger picture.

/thread
Because they are all too busy with Chad or Tyrone

Prof. Peterson is that you?

>Everybody I disagree with is a virgin

Can you teach me to be as cool as you?

Women and men have equal opportunity to excel in whatever they wish. Just because they *choose* to conform to the "norm" or *choose* to be a part of the herd of "sheeple" shouldn't mean that we have to manipulate the system and force unwilling people into positions they otherwise would not feel comfortable with.
Why does it matter? People inevitably will attempt to find happiness in what they do/will do in the future. If they find happiness in being dolts, why try and take that away from them? It seems very selfish, just because men want more women in their field.
-- Sorry if my reply isn't fully thought out, I've got to run. Was nice pondering this.

what if it would help push tech a lot further?

aps.org/programs/education/statistics/womenmajors.cfm

It's really only physics and engineering that has the "problem."

>ex's older sister received assloads of postgrad scholarships because she has a vagina and a decent GPA as a chemical engineer
>gets a PhD in chemical engineering
>companies are tripping over themselves to hire her
>she lands a great job as soon as she graduates
>quits after six months because "it's a hostile workplace" and "it just wasn't very fun" and "they weren't flexible enough for my childcare needs"
>works as a cashier at fucking Kohl's now

>science is as autismal as it comes
I disagree with you describing science as boring pointless work. It's some of the most meaningful work out there. Medicine is up there too. It's people actually trying to make a difference.

Most businesses don't benefit soceity at large.

There are boring parts of every job. But consider that in science you get to travel and talk about your work a lot. Pretty cool job if you ask me.

Same guy--the percentage does go down for doctoral and post doc positions. Though in my limited experience, at my university, women are much more likely to get a faculty position. It's just that very few apply.

I wonder how many dicks you have to succ to get a PhD just like that.

But i'm pretty sure she might have been an autist.

The measures proposed to "equalize" representation in tech. would all be harmful for productivity and progress. We're talking arbitrary hiring/promotion of people according to bases like gender and race as opposed to qualification, which would put underqualified people in critic positions. Furthermore, it would dissuade actual achievers from pursing what they love or what they're good at because they're playing the game with a ball and chain wrapped around their leg while the slacker gets a cush job thanks to what is between their legs.

All we can do is make sure there isn't express discrimination going on according to your gender or race, there are laws that protect that. Everything else is how nature and society is going to turn out. Things only ever get shittier when humans feel the need to interfere more.

I agree but what I was getting at was that maybe there are people who would be happy in some position but they don't know it.

Like a pretty girl who is also very intelligent but is handed everything in life and never had to work for anything might never consider science because it seems hard or she doesn't know anyone who's interested in it or her family think she will be good at something else. You can't really say that it's her fault or that she's lazy or whatever it just never worked out because of the environment.

There's so many things you have to take into account. The more I think about this the more it seems like there isn't some societal force stopping you from doing what you like and making you conform but rather this subtle stuff affecting your life slightly and steering you towards whatever is more accepted and easier to do. This might actually be worse because it doesn't feel like you're being oppressed in some way, there's no point where someone says "that's not what a girl/guy should do", it just seems normal and there's no way to get rid of it.

Hopefully this all makes sense as you said it's interesting to think about

That is a great mindset.

>50% of men know they will be considered failures and completely undesirable if they don't work hard for a tough degree and make a decent salary
>"won't anyone think of the pretty girl with the world at her feet who isn't being coaxed and pampered into a lucrative science field to boot?"

I always find this perspective interesting. I had no friends growing up and turned to a computer for solace where I found my love for technology and here we are at the end of the line where my former cage has turned profitable and Ms. Sexy Pants wants a piece of the pie. "Adversity builds character" isn't just a cliche. If you have an easy life there's a good chance you are going to turn out flat and worthless.

I don't think a genuinely intelligent person is going to be contained by society regardless. They'll do what they're interested in.

% of men know they will be considered failures and completely undesirable if they don't work hard for a tough degree and make a decent salary

Probably should've used a different example, I think what I said applies to men as well. You said you didn't have friends, maybe if you did you would end up doing something else, something you would be even better at and like even more. I like science but I sometimes regret not trying other stuff growing up.

My point was that it wasn't her fault her life was like that, the circumstances around us affect our lives more than we want to admit. Hopefully I'm wrong and intelligent people can overcome that and find what they enjoy doing but I'm not convinced.

Systemic racis- wait no, systemic misogyny.

In my personal experience, very few women are remotely interested in STEM stuff.

Hell, the ones I know are barely interested in anything beyond food and 'going out'.

It's incredible. I'll be sitting there after work in my flat (that I share with two female friends) and they have the most fucking vapid nonsense conversations.

It's fine - I don't but in - but when they ask if I want to go for a drink (for the 3rd time this week) I politely decline and say I've got some reading to do considering we literally went out every day this week thus far.

>user thats not fun
>you're always working wtf

My gf does the same, but knows to stfu when I look at her a certain way.

On the other hand.... most men these days are like this too.

Maybe 1 in 6 or 7 men understands learning/building/making shit as a hobby or for its own sake. Maybe 1 in 15 women.

As an engineering student at a (engineering school) with like 20% women overall i can say that women are in my experienc very rarely actually interested in technology in itself

Oh In addition to this.

The vast majority of ***People*** seem to find it incomprehensible that someone could prefer reading a textbook or learning something over the TV or 'the sports game' or 'going to da club'.

Pisses me off desu.

>Men and women are different
>They get treated differently

I don't see the problem.

Two girls I know are absolutely convinced it's the professor's fault they don't know anything. And they keep getting away with it because they are a minority.

Have you even step into a biology class?
They're filled with women.

I'm too old to go there now.

I doubt that adding a bunch of unhappy engineers/whatever who end up not even getting paying jobs in their fields would push tech further.
Advancement comes from people who care, research, and, study. Not from IT-tech support.
Putting Ms. Latte in a lab with an apron and scientific apparatuses will not advance anything, it will just waste fucking grant money.

As people live their life they tend to meet a very wide range of other people with other interests. Especially when you get to college, where the Maths/Biotech/Physics/Agriculture/Humanities/etc majors have to all take the same range of core classes to graduate with their degree. College itself is about finding out what you want to do in life. What you're talking about doesn't seem to make sense, this imaginary female will still have been exposed to science, maths, history, computers, etc from high school. If she is interested in it, she will learn more about it. The mindset you're proposing that she has - the herd mentality (ironically enough), that she needs other people to be interested in it for her to be - is no better of a system than we have currently in society. Your system just puts more half-assed idiots in the fields that are generally more rigorous, and would probably cause them to fail. If she wanted to learn about how her several hundred dollar iPhone worked, she would; just because she doesn't have to grovel in the streets doesn't mean that she doesn't have a brain. Like I said before, both genders have equal opportunity here. (I actually take that back - females have an advantage, but ignoring that obvious advantage). It is her fault, she clearly does not have the mentality suited to the career path, she chose a different one because she had more interest in it. Your whole proposal - pretty, intelligent girl - hints to your desire for more women, not for the greater good of the field, nor for the greater good of the woman herself. Not to be harsh.

I don't think many people "enjoy" run if the mill degrees like psychology, poli sci, or business.

Being able to make it in STEM often boils down to being able to tolerate it at least. Through an affinity for computers and a naturally procedural mind I liked CS. And it makes money to boot.

All life is circumstance. When humans try to control circumstance things get fucked even worse. Let's not.

He exaggerated but his point stands, i guess a better way to put is a man is worth as much as the skills he knows while a womans worth is almost entirely based on her genetics (looks)

did you remove the environmental factors of gender stereotypes, subtle media messages, older generations trying to enforce certain ideas on the young, larger amounts of role models in certain fields than others, and a variety of other factors that are probably influential in ways that are difficult to discern?

because i have my doubts.

You seem to have this idea that guys who go into STEM were forced to conduct experiments and sit in front of a computer as children

>probably influential

Another heady assumption, including the significance therewith

Scandinavia is "equal opportunity" to a fault, if anything they are trying to shove "STEM positivity" deliberately in front of girls

Sure, here's your non-meme answer

It's not a reproductive strategy. Being an actress, singer, model or all the other high-status bullshit is highly desired and most female idols come from there, as such activities greatly boost their status and widen the range of potential mates (which allows them to pick higher quality ones). No one thinks that girls solving the Riemann hypothesis are sexy, that doesn't boost their attractiveness towards the modern outgoing sub-100 IQ male at all. Those fields are additionally full of overweight or ugly social outcasts, so they tend to avoid associating with them so as to not lower their current status.

But not so fast with the superiority complex, the reason why you do it on the other hand is because it's your reproductive strategy. Yes, the desire to invent, earn money, assume power or whatever attempt at social relevance or acquisition of resources you do in this life is fully manipulated by your subconscious in an attempt to make your feathers more colorful. Think about it, would you ever have the balls to solve something huge and simply release it anonymously? That was the supposed point of your research in the first place, right? To benefit humanity, not yourself. Yet, you'd be absolutely unable to do it as the reason you did it in the first place was the social validation you get from the tribe, which leads to higher attractiveness as a male and, again, a wider choice of better potential mates.

There's no escape from that, unless you manage to shut down most of your instincts and install a fully-logical set of rules that override any potential illogical deviation that may arise from leftover instincts you cannot control. Can you do it? No, I guarantee you you can't. Your best option is to admit your inherent flaws and submit to them. A part of maturity is realizing your limits.

Singing, songwriting, poetry and writing skills, witty (intelligent) humour = pusssssyyyy

no, i don't think that at all
but i think growing up learning about male scientists or engineers, having your parents tell you that you'd be a good scientist or engineer, seeing them in the media on tv or in books or newspapers or whatever, the world over, you might start to get it into your head "hey, i might should be an engineer"

but if you were a girl maybe you wouldn't see as many female role models in engineering or science. maybe your parents would suggest other things to you, like about how you'll have children or you'll get married. maybe you read about a female engineer and she talks about how difficult it is, but maybe you see a lot more females doing fashion design or doing caregiving work or other things of that nature, and so you are less likely to decide to become and engineer.

the issue isn't that kids are sat down and told "okay boys you're gonna go do science, girls you're gonna go play with dolls." the issue is that the sum interactions young boys have with people push them down a path where they will decide on STEM fields, and the sum total of interactions young girls have do not. that's WHY the STEM positivity for young girls is so important- not because society is actively holding them back, but because people decide what to do based primarily on what is presented to them and what their parents say.

A study made in my country said that in more than 50% of the cases they just don't give a shit about STEM. This is by the own admission of the women who were asked.

95% of engineers got the idea from google searching 'top paid majors'

not a movie

*petroleum engineers

you're not wrong that a lot of women just don't give a shit, but them not giving a shit isn't inherent to them being women any more than men wanting to be engineers is inherent to them being men.

i also think you're underestimating the power of role models, but there is obviously room for disagreement there and i'm sure that i could just as easily be overestimating it.

Women will get your $$ anyways, u nerds.

Men have much higher rates of autism, high functioning aspergers, and ADHD. Many more men fit into the lowest and highest ends of the IQ bell curve than women do.

Plus let's remember, 93% of men occupy prisons and this is attributed to their biology, so I don't see how you can say that biological differences end where you feel it's convenient.

Also don't forget how men work more hours, have rediculous rates of workplace injury, die at younger ages.

Men also have many more characters who would fit into the geeky stereotype. People who have decreased receptivity in the social parts of the brain tend to be introverted but are inherently better at math. You'd be surprised at the rate of aspergers in programmers.

You miss the point. In programming for instance, you can see how particular fields appeal to certain brain types. The ability to hyperfocus on things is generally more common in men. To compare secretary work or seamstress work to complex math is rediculous. Very different settings and even among men, very few are capable of STEM or programming in general. It's just that the oddballs who are capable are usually male as the female brain is on average more normal in structure than the both nerdier and dumber / criminal male brain.

Story time.
> Be me as a (white male) Junior in a good college with a 3.97 gpa, a 4.0 physics gpa, and a 4.0 math gpa. Trash me for bragging, I don't give a shit, but it's important for the fucking story.
> I have a friend from high school who went to another college and is better than me at physics and has a 4.0 gpa
> We both apply to some REUs. I apply to 5 and get rejected from all but 1.
> He was rejected from all of his including the one I was accepted to. I chalk it up to me having some really good letters and being a year ahead of him.
> First day of REU, there are about 20 of us and there are more women there than men.
> First day, talk to girl REU student (the only pretty one).
> It turns out she's a rising sophomore who has taken a single semester of physics from some school I've never heard of and is considering the major.

Very few people are capable of entering these fields. Plus there is something inherently male about complex systems and problem-solving, explaining why more men are found in these fields,

Affirmitive action is cancer. They had to get rid of IQ requirements in the military due to blacks sueing on the basis of race. They changed the height and strength requirements of police and firefighters based on shrill women complaining it was too male-oriented. Also look into how certain demographics are granted points on the SAT based solely on race. Wait until shit starts exploding because we let unqualified women into fields who were allowed positions solely based on their gender.

After you have sex with an attractive female yes I can

No fucking way that's true, you must be exaggerating to the nth degree

It is subjectively boring to most people desu, meaningful =/= exciting

Science is contrary to popular belief a manly pursuit. Men who pursue a science career aspire to demonstrate a mastery over their field.

So I'm a female getting a sci degree.
All the women I know from high-school are on their third child and I'm on my second degree. They don't like to work if they don't have to. They found a dumb blue-collar guy(refinery worker,drafter etc)to get them pregnant so they can stay at home. All they do is complain on twitter what a handful their kid is.
The few uggos and fat girls that stayed in school got super feelsy degrees (art, counseling, psych, social work, sociology, teaching) All are cashiers or work in call centers now.
I saw it as a business deal. We pay you all this money to go to school because you have a vag. You end up with a stable decent paying job. Relying on a male for income was much too risky, because if he leaves you, you have no money nor skills.
I think women just learn from their moms, mine was single, and couldn't rely on a guy for money.

NSF broader impacts bro.
I'm a female-hispanic and saw right through that shit ay lmao.
Everyone at my REU was fucking stupid and our projects were so shitty. It was just an excuse for the PI to get secured funding for their own work for three summers, while we just did the bitch work.
The PI has to adhere to the NSF guidelines tho for free funding. They made money off my last name and I got a career boost. The ultimate scam.

am 15 year old, can confirm

Yep! You're so right. But you have to play the game. I'm not sure I would have gotten into a good grad school without this experience. It sounds like my experience was the same as yours. Our projects were incredibly shitty. We had to write reports at the end and I skimmed through these only to realize that everyone at the REU was really fucking stupid. At least they pay you.

Yeah my research at my home university was 10x better and I'm kinda embarrassed to even mention that REU project on my statement of purpose. Just having the name National Sci Foundation is what gives you the boost.

/thread

kys. Nursing is a respectable oppcupation

>oppcupation
no need to even propose a counter argument

display mammary glands and surrounding tissue with sufficient proof in the form of a timestamp

men due tend to have higher highs, and lower lows

A person of average intelligence can achieve a math or physics phd. I've seen it quite a few times desu. If I had to guess (yes, I'm guessing), I would think that these fields attract people who want to be super smart more than it attracts people who are super smart. But I don't know--food for thought.

t.self loathing tranny

agreed

>t. schizophrenic fembot

I can believe that. Another user here.
I worked my ass off doing chem eng, 3.9/4.0 GPA, barely getting interviews and pretty much just getting laughed at.
My sister followed in my footsteps, borderline passing all her courses, she gets scholarships to go for free due to scholarships only being available to women, gets tonnes of offers on graduation and is pretty much the queen bee now. I'm begging like a puppy to try to get me in with one of her connections. It's a fucked up world now.

>average intelligence
>math or physics PhD

not at any reputable program

Shit gets really difficult past undergrad. Average people simply cannot grasp high level theoretical math and physics.

Average people are intimidated by undergrad Calc ffs