Why Are There So Few Women in Science?

Kholdstare

That is the exact same argument used to rationalize affirmative action which is to achieve equality in number BUT ALSO establishes the argument as a "fact". In other words affirmative action destroys its own need. At least, that very social science argument is BS.

Kholdstare

I'm afraid of laughing on this joke. You should simply search for Mathematics.

Kholdstare

+1 dipole.

Everyone is different and that should be respected and not forced to be changed. Science has been wrongly pedestalized/sensationalized too much.

Monique

In Holland that cannot be done either. They say one cannot select on those characteristics, but yes it happens and no they won't say they're doing it.
How will you know whether an employer is not doing that? In my case people were open enough to tell me, probably that's the difference. Actually I talked to my employer not too long ago on this issue and shared the story of not being invited for interviews because of my gender, then my employer confided that they understood the selection and that I was not supposed to be invited either! That actual selection stopped me from getting the job that I wanted, a male was selected who ended up not showing up for the job: talk about selecting someone motived and fitting...

Kholdstare

How will you be so sure that the employer is doing that even if they tell you that's not the case? Will you still blame them if they actually denied you for proper reason? The problem here is not the gender discrimination, the problem here is the human ability of telling exceptionally good lies. As it has no solution, innocent until proven guilty seems less complicated solution than guilty until proven innocent.

However, in your case it was clearly bad and you deserve the job.

Monique

You can't be sure, even in my case when I heard first/second hand there was nothing I could do: there's no paper trail. My current employer ended up inviting me because of my strong recommendations and CV, as said others didn't even consider looking over my credentials.
It would never have crossed my mind as an argument, if they hadn't told me I would've thought there either was no money or there was someone more qualified.

HeLiXe

Thanks for sharing this berkeman. I'm currently a student so my group of peers are students and there seems to be no checks and balances in regards to chauvinism.
I think affirmative action was put in place to prevent discrimination and while it may guarantee placement of women in positions in science (academia or employment) it is not equivalent to the social encouragement of women to go into science. Affirmative actions spans across many more fields than science.

Kholdstare

Affirmative action have nothing to do with enabling women in science positions. It was there to bring the numbers to equal. Neither does it encourages women to go to science itself than anything else nor does it prevent discrimination against them. Rather it establishes a series of social myths.

HeLiXe

ok.... >_>

In any event I did not say it prevents discrimination against women, I said it was put in place to prevent discrimination and to guarantee placement of women in academics and employment...this by means of a quota. My original point is that it does not encourage women to go into science related fields, and in answering the OP I stated that society encourages women to seek careers in fields related to health, education, social sciences etc. I am not debating the benefits or travesties of affirmative action.

Kholdstare

Your first line is confusing. When you say "it was put in place to prevent discrimination", don't you also mean "it prevents discrimination against women" ?

In today's US any kind of discrimination is not tolerated. In overall sense discrimination is non-existent now thanks to anti-discriminatory laws. Nobody can prevent woman from doing whatever she wants. So there's no point of affirmative action trying to guarantee placement of woman in academics and employment, as nobody's stopping them.

And doing so might make them go against their wish if in a hypothetical scenario less than n number of women wants to enter the field, [where the affirmative action requires at least n number of women enter the field].

russ_watters

I'm not sure about the "establishing social myths" part (not even sure what that means, but what AA does is fight discrimination with discrimination. That's why I'm against it. It is true that it has brought numbers up in a bunch of different areas, but I'm not sure it is really reflective of a net improvement in equality of opportunity. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Astronuc

No one is advocating forcing anyone to change or pursue an academica program, e.g., STEM, involuntarily.

Affirmative action occurs at universities and business, but there is little or no influence in K-12.

This interest in math and science has to be cultivated during the K-12 years. It's a matter of encouraging those who demonstrate an interest, and preventing discouragement.

Jow

I think the reason there are fewer women has a lot to due with preference. Men, on the average, enjoy science a lot more than women. For example, I am in all honours classes in my school and you can definitely see the gender divide. More females in English and French, whereas more males in Math and in the Sciences. However, all of the females in my honours classes are very good at math and science (although the males in my honours classes [except English honours] aren't necessarily good at English). Anyway, my point is these females aren't in Math and Science honours not because they aren't good at it, but because they simply have less interest in it.

russ_watters

Indeed, but as said culture is tough to change and I think gender typing is probably more difficult than racial. My mom works in a nursery school and the kids just plain don't know what race is (which is pretty cool). But every kid knows the boy is the doctor and the girl is the nurse.

Kholdstare

No. You are wrong all woman has the exactly equal preference as Astronuc has pointed out.

ZombieFeynman

I think you and Jow are using the word preference differently.

Kholdstare

There are already laws defending equality of opportunity. The problem is with investigation. Take Monique's case for example.

In this case she was wrongfully denied. [If she had some evidence] she could bring this thing up in court and the matter would be solved [unsure abt holland].

Now lets assume another girl does not get the job and is also given a proper reason. She has no reason to doubt that they are lying unless the employer disclose it. Now let's further assume she brought a case against them claiming that the employer lied.

What do you think is the solution of all this? Affirmative action or Proper police/agent investigation.