Gender Stereotypes

but we do, I've just finished telling you more women are enrolling in STEM than men here

More women is more inclusive.

what kind of stupid logic is that

I thought the meme was that females mature faster than males and end up being the more intelligent sex.

they mature too soon so they become brainlets

this
>uhm sweetie

>This article was published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world.

Sure, that's impressive.

>So its results are indisputable.

That's wrong. I didn't read the rest of your post because of how wrong this statement is. Partially because all science is subject to being challenged over time and partially because high-impact journals have the highest redaction rates (eg iai.asm.org/content/79/10/3855).

I don't care how good or how bad the article in your post was, but if you wanted people to discuss it seriously you shouldn't have made such a glaring mistake.

the errors are bigger than the fucking values holy shit

Women never mature; they will always be like children while male brains do mature in their twenties.

>kids like different games
>Therefore it must follow that discrimination is the cause for asymmetries on the workforce

Is this what basis as social """science"""

Men doing science:
>Lets study the fundamental nature of the universe, find new mathmatical theorems opening up new avenues of technology, and cure diseases

Women doing science:
>Lets study women doing science

Wooow. Not even the guy who responded but that response was filled with incredible amounts of soy

They never mature mentally. They always have the same mentality as a 12 year old. Their bodies just mature faster than men so they can become jailbait and get hooked up with an older (and more established) male before some 13 year old boy who cant provide resources or security knocks her up.

>This article was published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world. So its results are indisputable.

Stopped reading due to cringe

Why did every culture in the history of the world develop this same stereotype? Even in uncontacted tribal societies that are considered matriarchal, the matriarch is more of a mother figure, while the men are still building all the huts and crafting all the tools (science and engineering)

yeah, this baffles me too. the 'stereotype' is obvious truth, what is the point of acting dumb and denying it?

Interestingly another study found that male feedback boosts female confidence more than female feedback while for boys it didn't matter if the feedback came from a female or a male teacher.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29157130/

The conductors of the study immediately concluded that female students view male teachers as "gatekeepers" of STEM fields and thus value the male feedback more but it would be interesting to see if women generally are affected by male feedback more. Especially because people always call for female rolemodels as the lack of them is constantly named as the reason why girls underperform

>As if a top journal would just publish any trash. Look, this paper was thoroughly peer reviewed. It is literal truth.

I know this may come as a surprise to you, undergrad, but top journals issue retractions all the time, sometimes due to outright falsification. Not that I'm disputing this paper itself, but you need to lose this naive attitude.

Hesoos almighty, the absolute state of this board.

Did I miss something? Has this article been retracted? No?

Then address the data.

So there's no problem with a flawed article until it gets officially retracted?

Flawed in what way?

This board will never mature, they always have the same mentality of a 12 year old.

This is the same logic that says when there are more women in a given field, it's a victory for equality, but when more men are in a field, it's a defeat.

>but if you wanted people to discuss it seriously you shouldn't have made such a glaring mistake.

>Judging someone solely by their mistakes
Well that's not fair to anyone to discredit them just based on their mista-

>Mistakes that could be rectified with more than three seconds of thought put into them
Okay, it's fair to judge in this instance. I redact my previous conclusion.

Fucking kek'd

>Women value the opinions of men more than they do women
>"We need more female rolemodels!"
>Why not use male rolemodels to artificially boost female opinion about their own sex?
>"That is misogynistic! We need more female rolemodels!"
>Use men as rolemodels to build female self-esteem
>It works better than using women
>Feminists cry because men are capable of being better rolemodels for women than actual women
>Victory for science

This is one of the few places I've seen people tell their actual, full opinions on a subject and get ass blasted by people with the opposite opinion. It's a great place. People are so inherently against another idea that intellectual discourse about them are either incredibly intense fusillade back and forth, or a shit flinging contest.

>One is good for the brain.
>The other makes me laugh IRL
>I never lose either way.

You guys are as much fun as Veeky Forums

>womenthink
jej

Wrong. In all likelihood, it is a very role-driven country. With STEM being considered feminine.

Im not going to pay for that shit. Can someone post the data and and metodology? Generally these papers are flawed in that they conclude a lot of shit from some basic trends.

Just throw the doi inside sci-hub.la's search box, senpai.

Abstract

Common stereotypes associate high-level intellectual ability (brilliance, genius, etc.) with men more than women. These stereotypes discourage women’s pursuit of many prestigious careers; that is, women are underrepresented in fields whose members cherish brilliance (such as physics and philosophy). Here we show that these stereotypes are endorsed by, and influence the interests of, children as young as 6. Specifically, 6-year-old girls are less likely than boys to believe that members of their gender are “really, really smart.” Also at age 6, girls begin to avoid activities said to be for children who are “really, really smart.” These findings suggest that gendered notions of brilliance are acquired early and have an immediate effect on children’s interests.
.....
Common stereotypes associate high-level physical strength with men more than women. These stereotypes discourage women’s pursuit of many careers; that is, women are underrepresented in fields whose members cherish strength (such as bodyguarding and carrying of loads). Here we show that these stereotypes are endorsed by, and influence the interests of, children as young as 6. Specifically, 6-year-old girls are less likely than boys to believe that members of their gender are “really, really strong.” Also at age 6, girls begin to avoid activities said to be for children who are “really, really strong.” These findings suggest that gendered notions of strength are acquired early and have an immediate effect on children’s interests.

whoa, make me think

There may be some variability that this study's design hasn't accounted for.

>
>misinterpreting any teacher as a "gatekeeper," in other words an obstacle
I doubt this behavior is learned, it probably has more has to do with women's innate submissiveness.
That's all this whole fucking thing boils down to, anyway. Women are born go-getters at a lower rate than men.

Does anyone know of any studies that compare male and female time preference?