How do we make women priority in STEM?

>>8916972
I don't know why people are hellbent on ignoring the fact that women don't like critical thinking. It's not their fault, their is no evolutionary biological nor social benefits for them to actually master anything that is difficult. This is why female competitive chess players are magnitudes worse than male ones.

>>8916980
>>>/pol/

>>8917013
What exactly did I say that was incorrect? This is common knowledge, ignoring facts on imageboards might work but it doesn't work in the real world.

http://efukt.com/21662_THE_TRUTH_ABOUT_ITT_TECH.html

>>8917026
The problem in the world is you and every other misogynists attitude toward women causing them a career stall.

>>8916972
by letting them do my homework desu

>>8916972
By not allowing them to believe that they can't 'get' math or chemistry and shit. Same for boys tbqh.

>>8917037
It's true, women aren't able to compete not because of "da patriarchy!!1!!!" or "muh soggy knees!" but because their intelligence on average congregates around the mean (there aren't enough intelligent women that exist and STEM is a field that requires intelligence) and evolutionary psychology causes their thought processes to not be efficient for STEM.
Of course there will be some women that break this, but we shouldn't look at every field that exists and ask "is it a 50-50 split between the genders", we should think about what the field is and then ask whether the split makes sense. Something like physics really will always be 85% men, that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

>>8916972
Rather, why?

>>8917084
85% is still dominated by men and that is not ok. A place dominated by men is hostile to women

Make woman less dumb or laxy

I can see this is going nowhere because pol seems to like ruining threads with edginess

>>8917013
Woman are biologically designed to use men's resources (weather it be time, thinking or physical ) rather than their own so they have the energy to birth a child and feed them. Woman literally think slower than men on average.

>>8917037
Except woman get hired easier than men.

>>8917122
Is that from scientific research done in 2017?

Didn't think so.

>>8916972
I don't think we have to. There's nothing stopping women from entering STEM. Maybe trying to reduce the bias that men are inherently better at STEM than women. but I don't know how we would do that.

>>8917126
If they are hired easier then why aren't there more women in STEM?

>>8917109
So a place dominated by one sex is always bad for the other sex? And the reason that there are more of one sex is because of "hostility" and not because, ya know, the two groups tend to enjoy different things?

File: Twisted Face.jpg (60KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x480px

>>8916972
Reminder that STEM majors ultimately go to the payroll of the companies that are funding institutions to urge more women into STEM. When you raise the pool of available applicants, you can keep the wages from going up, allowing them to milk twice the productivity of the scientists & engineers but at half the cost they would've had to pay otherwise.

>>8917109
>A place dominated by men is hostile to women
Please, tell me more about the Muslim world.

>>8917146
Because less women apply.

Why bother applying when the field is saturated by hostile men? Teach them sensitivity training and more women would apply.

>>8917192
Jesus christ....

>>8916972
Do you know what?

People don't seem to get it.

A man is disposable, every day I'm reminded of the thousands behind me trying to claw to my spot. A man is nameless and faceless, nobody cares about you. Your only identifying marks is your work and experience, nothing else truly holds you back.

STEM lives off this shit.

Nobody cares how close you were to getting a proof before someone else solved it.

Nobody cares how amazing your device is if the design and underlying math is shit.

Nobody cares.

Nobody.

Cares.

Men live off this shit, every facet of society asks men to prove it. Prove you're a man, prove you're worthwhile, prove yourself. STEM is a field where nobody cares for who you are, just what you can do.

STEM isn't going to change, and dont patronize all the women who worked their asses off.

If you want to be in STEM, prove it.

>>8916980

Women are lazy. Even the smart ones who are studying with me. Most of they have the grand ambition of getting impregnated and becoming a SAHM and eventually they will get a part-time job in administration when their kids grow up.

Women have no reason to work hard. They can leech off their husbands and their value is innate. They have no reason to be ambitious.

There are exceptions but this is the general rule.

>>8916972
teach your daughters math instead of giving her dolls

Thank fuck. Every interaction I ever had with women was negative. I don't want them anywhere near me. Women are judgemental and cancerous. They get in your group/organisation and immediately start causing drama.

Let's not forget autism mainly effects men

A women with mediocre grades will so much better than a men with mediocre grades. It's not even funny.

Due to this retarded positive sexism, brainlet women could make it really far if they only wanted to.

Everyone is super serious about trying to get more women in their department.

>>8917137
>from 2017

>>8917255
Problem, virgin?

>>8917037
Maybe, you should consider the fact that women are not good at certain things.

Women complaining they cannot into STEM (actually they don't, only feminists do) is like rich hipsters complaining they don't get to experience authentic poor people's lifestyle.

Go into banking or some other area where you vagina can make you lots of money. You ruined our life, enough, already.

1. Taking STEM as a whole statistic is retarded because some majors have really high concentration of men (engineering C.S.). But in fields like biology and chemistry, women dominate the field. In math is almoat 50/50 but feminist seem to have autism for thinga that arent >=50 women.
2. In academia, there is virtually no discrimination nowdays and most professors I know only care that you can do the work and learn god dammit. And I'm talking from a third world country, so anywhere else should be even more blind to gender (or they put women on a pedestal).
3. The ability to choose, takes some edge from pursuing a career in that field. This paradox is seen in places like Norway, were women aren't nearly as present in stem as, lets say, india. It may be possible that women have different preferences than men, and I don't get what's so fucking wrong about that. The point is that we should not be prone to judgment, or expect shit that isn't real and base these careers on interest and merit

Women objectively are treated differently in STEM fields, subconsciously. Go to any seminar talk given by a woman and you'll see condescending comments, men in the audience fielding questions for the speaker, etc.

>>8917440
In STEM the professors always go easier on girls, especially if they're attractive. It isn't because they're old pervs trying to bang college girls, it's just a natural evolutionary impulse to be nicer to the sexually desireable. Women in STEM get endless help from the beta virgins tripping over each other to help the pretty girl study, or from profs who grade them easier

We encourage our female peers. Pretty simple I think.

>>8917440
In my case, professors do that to any speaker to pressure him/her. Academics are just assholes.

>>8916972
There's around a dozen scholarships worth thousands each for females only in STEM, and I haven't seen any for both sexes

Aren't they taking this shit way too far?

File: stem gender.png (42KB, 349x288px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 349x288px

>>8917084
Do you genuinely think that an 85-15 split in gender is natural?

I realize about half this thread has devolved already, but the gender splits in STEM aren't natural. Take what's probably the most egregious and obvious example: computer science. In the 80s, computer science was damn near equitable. Secretarial positions dominated by women were who computers were used by, and bachelor degrees reflected that. However, by the 1980s, something changed. The PC came out, and was marketed almost exclusively to men. High Tech items typically were, especially in the 80s.
A study in the 90s polled the families of students in the Carnegie Mellon Comp Sci program, and found that a stunning majority associated computers with boys and as gifts for boys.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

Women's interest in science actually begins separating from boys at the beginning of middle school, a time when girls are the most socially succeptable. And even though girls' math grades are almost identical, if marginally better than boys' grades in the U.S., most women view their math skills as being much lower than men's.

Honestly, the solution isn't special scholarships or programs for undergrads as that's treating a symptom, not a cause. The real solution is making sure that young girls stay interested in science and continue to be confident in their ability at an early age.

tfw male and too stupid for STEM. Specifically Engineering. tfw switched to Business Finance. tfw won't get a job due to STEM being the future.

>>8917013
Did you make this thread just so you could type this post?

>>8918148
A thousand times this.

It's a pipeline problem that starts when they're young, and it's not due to dumb girls but the way we socialize them into only fitting certain molds. This also affects certain minority groups.

http://www.npr.org/programs/latino-usa/505870410/the-tech-industry-s-leaky-pipeline

File: lesbian physics.gif (3MB, 638x357px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 638x357px

>>8918148
this is a good post in a bad thread.
there's a societal stigma that math and science are un-feminine.

>>8916972

you don't

bitches chose to dig their hole

they can die in it.

>>8918148
There is a problem with this argument, it doesn't explain why gender ratios become even more extreme in Scandinavian countries, which are seen as the most gender equal societies in the world.
Even if the argument were to be made that these societes still were affected by some social stigma that prevents STEM gender ratios from equalizing, is this really a big enough factor to explain these differences? And if it is, why are the differences increasing and not decreasing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxY_5-N81Q

>>8918047
>tfw ugly girl in stem

>>8916972
take a bath you stinky neckbeards

>>8918148
>Do you genuinely think that an 85-15 split in gender is natural?

Yes.

> In the 80s, computer science was damn near equitable.

Because it was something else entirely. You say it yourself. It was a secretarial job.

============================

It has noting to do with STEM in particular. Women prefer certain kinds of roles and men prefer other kinds of roles. Go into any kind of industry and you will find that men and women segregate themselves into specific roles.

There is no reason other than liberal platitudes, why it should be expected that men and women occupy any given position in equal proportions.

That is just stupid.

Even in my faculty (Mathematics and Natural Sciences) there is a disproportionate amount of administrative jobs occupied by women, most of whom have MSc or even Ph.D in Math or Physics. Why are they working in administration instead of being a professor?

Because that is what women do. Because women aren't men. Stop pretending otherwise.

>>8918361

Yep. In our country, there is a super high proportion of highly educated women who just become a stay at home mom and then maybe get a part-time clerical job in their 40s. This is what they want to do. They don't want to be a career women because they want to have children and raise them. Are you going to tell me that that is unnatural?

The vast majority of women want children. Therefore they must chose child-friendly careers. Not all careers are child-friendly. A professor has a fuckton of work all the time. Not a good career if you want to be a mother at the same time.

Another example would be the kibbutz experiment in Israel.

>>8917037
Don't really agree with them but there is no "career stall", women have a much easier time getting a career in STEM. They have more opportunities and a support network, sexism is actively practiced, choosing an inferior (in the topic) female of a superior (in the topic) make in everything and providing better opportunities, putting more time and relevancy into females than males. Academic, school, employment, etc.

They simply aren't interested in it, at least not yet, despite it being constantly shilled and dumbed down to make it more appealing. I do believe sexes it will eventually equalise but attempting to achieve equal percentages of sex through sexism, selectivity, tribalism and indigance; is not the way.

>>8918612
>of a superior (in the topic)
*over a superior male (in the topic)

>>8918612
>>8918616
The real way is to equalise is to minimise societal perceptions and divisions in gender/sex. Like, clothing, interests, entertainment, products, media, etc. Instead of defining oneself so strongly to their sex and grouping themselves apart.

By doing nothing.

This is just another plot to reduce stem wages by inflating the labor pool.

File: asian_loki_science_man.jpg (90KB, 468x256px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 468x256px

>>8917169
>>8918828
Just gonna tie these two together. Occam's razor favors this explanation in the extreme. The motive is clear, it's simple, and it's believable without needing to lean on mountains of other information & data that's statistical rather than formulaic.

>>8916972
Let women choose whichever field they want to study. If less women go into STEM, this only indicates that they are less interested by those disciplines. Identity politics is deeply misguided.

Daily reminder there are more women enrolled in college and more women in biomedical fields and they still aren't happy; still see them bitching and still see excessive amounts of women in stem scholarships

>>8917440
How about you go to a stem seminar for once in your life instead of making up bullshit

>>8918423
Computer science degrees weren't "secretarial", this was still a degree that taught you Fortran and other highly technical skills. I implied that computer science was equitable because at this time, computers were associated with secretaries (women), therefore computer science degrees were more equitable.

>Women prefer certain kinds of roles and men prefer other kinds of roles. Go into any kind of industry and you will find that men and women segregate themselves into specific roles.
>Because that is what women do. Because women aren't men. Stop pretending otherwise.
This isn't science. Could you prove that gender splits are cognitive/psychological and not social? Even if you prove cognitive/psychological differences cross-cultures, this ignores the idea that women weren't truly in the workforce until the 70s (at least in the U.S.) despite having all the the legal ability to do so. Social expectations play a HUGE role in occupational equality.

>Another example would be the kibbutz experiment in Israel.
What's the conclusion you draw from kibbutzim?

>>8918361
I'm not well versed in Scandinavian countries, but I do take issue with the term "most gender equal". Again, I don't know any studies on how people view gender roles in Scandinavian countries, but even women consistently conjuring up an image of a man when thinking of an "engineer" can be indicative of social bias.

Personally, I don't know if eliminating social biases would make a utopian 50-50 split in STEM, but it definitely plays a huge role as it did in Comp Sci. I think you could probably treat 60-40 as a natural split if a little odd (as in the life sciences), but 85-15 definitely means something fishy is going on.

>>8916972
Perhaps a better question is how do we improve science education? Why should women (or anyone else) be prioritized?

>>8916972
I don't even know why exactly people are pushing for women in STEM. Is being an engineer some kind of privilege that everybody has to have access to? It's just a fucking job. The only argument you could make for it is that women have less income. But STEM isn't even the best paying field, so it's absurd to push women into there. A woman that wants to earn a lot of money can go into law or business. And a lot do. The only reason why woman on average still make less dough is because women have to compromise on their careers with raising children. So if you want to close the income gap, then invest in daycares etc. and stop pushing women into STEM where they will face the exact same problem they do in any other field, and that is that founding a family kills your career.

>>8919164
Nobody's pushing women into STEM to even the score or to make women rich (STEM is a horrible path to actual wealth, anyways). The point is that women by and large are not choosing careers in the field. Why? It's certainly not due to some inherent superiority of men. Rather, we all have our biases and they tend to make STEM a bit of a boy's club. Ask any woman in such a field about her experience, and I promise she's been treated differently than male counterparts. It drives people away. The goal is to fix the societal issue, not artificially get women engineering degrees.

>>8917109
pls b9 harder

>>8917026
>facts
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
>[citation needed]

>>8916980
MAYNE STREEM METEOR

>>8918148
Go home Destiny, this argument got btfo already.

>>8916980
>it's not their fault that women are weak and stupid, it just happened to be that I'm better than them because of biology
Seriously dude, could you be more deluded? Do you seriously not think that SOCIETAL pressures could have an effect on women's roles in SOCIETY? Because I don't think there's enough evidence for a difference in cognitive ability that is so great that only 15% of women could make it into STEM.

>>8919673
This was also meant for this >>8918423

>>8919673
>evry1 is cre8ted equaal!! XDDD

Anything else you learned from kindergarten?

>>8919221
>they tend to make STEM a bit of a boy's club
who? I'm a grill studying engineering and I've never experienced any kind of bias in the classroom, or have been treated negatively for choosing to go into STEM.
I don't think it's a problem that women are not in STEM, and I don't think liking science automatically makes you smart (because I think people's reasoning for trying to push girls into STEM is to show that girls are just as intelligent as boys). are girls treated differently than guys socially? yeah, but that's a much deeper aspect of humanity and not a problem that "prevents" women from going into STEM.

>>8917111
How did these trips go unchecked

>>8919768
I'm glad you feel that way. I don't necessarily mean issues stemming from being treated unfairly by instructors; it could be entirely social for instance. My perspective here is less big lectures and more of what I see as a grad student working in research.

I agree that it's not inherently a problem that women are not in STEM, but rather indicative of the deeper problems you mention. It seems that most of this is a push towards examining those deeper aspects and trying to do something about some aspect of it.

>>8916972
Maybe more women should step up and pursue STEM careers.
I don't buy the excuses (oh you never let me in, that's why I never tried). If women want to see more women in STEM, those women should be in STEM rather than saying that "someone else" should make it happen.

What's funny is, very few women are eager to join me in boilermaking, an area certainly dominated by men. I have known just two women in the industry - one gave up because it was too hard and the other recognized the difficulty, studied and developed skills, and still works in the industry.
It's not like they're rejected from it. But we can't change the realities of the job for someone who wants it to be different than it really is.

>>8918148
Well, then argur about CS and engineering and don't generalise your retardes statistica to all of STEM. Check out the biology, medicine, and chemistry ratea.

File: msc.png (29KB, 513x339px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 513x339px

>>8919818
You seem angry at the statistics. Why?
Biology, medicine, and chemistry are interesting fields because they don't require many higher-level mathematics. Even for those who score above 680 on the math portion of SAT, women in this group consistently rate their math ability lower than men do. This is called "Mathematical Self-Concept" (MSC), an important idea when discussing this issue.

So the fields of biology, medicine, chemistry and mathematics (strange, I know, but it makes sense since only people who already have high MSC regardless of social bias go into math majors) are relatively equitable.
However, the fact that engineering (a massive field in its own right), physics, and computer science have dismal gender rates is cause for concern.

>>8919811
Besides the anecdote, the problem isn't really that women think STEM is too hard. The problem is that women aren't interested in STEM (excluding life sciences) in the first place. I've got a graph that I'll post that shows that interest in science for women (compared to men) drops HARD during middle school. Unless you can prove that there are innate/natural psychological phenomenon that drive women away in large numbers from science in middle school, the answer most likely lies in a social phenomenon.

File: interest in science.png (181KB, 756x667px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 756x667px

>>8920063
I can cite any of this pretty quickly if anyone would like.

Any kind of quota based system is inherently discriminatory.
Let women figure out what they want to do on their own.

>>8920069
>plos one

I was wondering what sorts of journals I could find this stuff in.

>>8919795
Because neither dubs nor trips are a meme on /sci/.

File: percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png (136KB, 873x907px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 873x907px

>>8920063
www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelors-degrees-conferred-to-women-by-major-1970-2012/
Nigger you are full of shit. Even in physics and matht he disparity is no more than 10% not to mention they dominate, by a fucking lot any other field. It´s litterally just engineering and CS, and no one in academia even respects those degrees.

>>8919673

LMFAO. Feminism is all about respecting women's choice until it is a choice the feminists don't want. What is the point or end game of trying to shill a career path on a college aged woman that doesn't want to.

>>8920242
Do you see how it says "physical sciences" in your graph? That means it's combined the mostly equitable chemistry field with physics (and possibly geology, astronomy, etc.). The fields of physics and chemistry have glaring differences in gender equity.

Besides that, I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you'd like to start programs and argue that more men should pursue the arts, education, and public administration, I'd be right there behind you!

>>8916972
Put quota in men admition and free tutories to women plus secure high pay job.

>>8920271
>If you'd like to start programs and argue that more men should pursue the arts, education, and public administration, I'd be right there behind you!
Nah, I would object to this because I wouldn't want men being chosen for careers in the humanities over more qualified female counterparts.

>>8920271
Is it any better to combine everything into STEM? Also, chemistry, geology and astronomy use many mathematical techniques, you are being a fool to think that just because physics use a lot of math, everything else falls into the trivial category. For a physicist, an engineer is a complete moron with no love for math. Also, check fucking math and statistics, and don´t come telling me statistics isn´t math or difficult math because that is just plain ignorance.

For you other point, I just point out that in education, by any other parameter women are outperforming men and people just care about careers were men outperform women. I really don´t give two shits if less men are in English or education because I´m not insecure enough to blame my life choices to society.

>lol white boys can't play basketball
>white boys growing up don't try to play basketball as a result
>nba is predominantly black

Now that you're the victims, do you understand?

>>8920291
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>8916972
The only places where the STEM gender gap lessens is in poor countries with few economic opportunities except STEM. When women have the choice, they choose things other than STEM

This is why the STEM gender gap is higher in rich Scandinavian countries with high gender equality, and the gap is far lower in countries like India where STEM is one of the few places to succeed economically

Women as a whole, statistically, on average, do not like STEM.

Most importantly, I find it disgustingly ironic when women complain about the "nerdy guy" culture of STEM and how women don't "feel comfortable" with it so the culture should change to accommodate them. It's because women don't like nerdy geeky guys.

If anything, the STEM gender gap is a result of women discriminating against nerdy guys

tl;dr
There is no gender gap issue in STEM. Women choose not to enter STEM, they could have chosen to but they didn't. They can get the fuck over it. If they want emotional support and encouragement to enter STEM they should fuck off.

I sure as fuck didn't get any - I got punched and made fun of for doing math homework on the bus back as a kid. So much encouragement, hah! FUCK OFF ROASTIE BITCHES.

>>8916972
There's very little in STEM that stops women succeeding. The only thing that might do it is terrible family hours which I don't give a shit about.

The issue come back to when they were children. Your girls usually get stupid barbie dolls and such shit, while boys get given lego and other mechanical things. This creates critical thinking and reasoning skills at a young age which creates young people interested in STEM.

It's the parent's fault. You just have to ask the average STEM student what they played with as a kid to work it out.

>>8920394
I don't even remotely see the point of going back that far. It's a matter of free will.

When these girls sit down and see a list of majors to choose between, if they don't chose a STEM major then it is THEIR OWN FAULT. Period, no exceptions.

File: judaism.gif (212KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 501x585px

Yeeeees goyim! Support those women in stem! Its not like an increase in the labor force will drive down wages and allow ((((us)))) to hire you for pennies.

Oh what am I saying, we'll just import Pajeet and Dong-Wei who we can fire at any point on an H1-B visa!

>>8920276
Not what I'm arguing for. Programs that encourage visibility of that field for a targeted gender are what I'm talking about. Camps and internships that allow students in secondary school to get a taste for those fields are more along the lines of what I encourage.
>>8920283
Sure, if you really take issue with me using "STEM" rather than the specific fields of physics, engineering, and computer science, and possibly math (which is a 60-40 split, not bad, but something's slightly off). The semantics aren't as important as the problem. I merely took issue with you claiming "physics is no more than 10%" against my own evidence. I'll cede that the problem is more targeted than "STEM".
>I really don´t give two shits if less men are in English or education because I´m not insecure enough to blame my life choices to society.
I think you're projecting a little here. No one's blaming anyone? Unless you want to conjure some stereotype of a feminazi blaming the patriarchy for why she doesn't succeed, this isn't really relevant. The fact of the matter is that social biases are primary drivers for gender imbalance in many careers, especially in the fields we've discussed.
>>8920405
>It's a matter of free will.
Nice meme. Do you genuinely believe people are exempt from cultural and socioeconomic influences? How is it even possible to deny at least social determinism?

>>8920447
So women don't have free will to resist their anti-STEM sentiments, but society as a whole has the free will to resist putting anti-STEM sentiments into the minds of women

Yep, it's always someone else.

>>8920419
t. lazy ass programmer who can't compete with people from the third world

>>8920447
>60-40 means slightly off
What are you bases for saying shit needs to go right down the middle? There is virtually no human activity that goes by this rule, why should we expect, that after we taken into acount societal influence that anything would be 50/50? Your claims are bold and nearsighted and I don´t think there are many studies that support your case. Norway, again, is a great example because all the parameters sociologists/femnisists talk about are quite good in these sort of places but the outcome is completley different. My point is that you can only expect that if we were literally equal in all aspects. Maybe there isn´t much difference in "innate math skills", but women could have less innate competitive skills or whatever, either way we have virtually no evidence to support that things should go down the middlle. Also, you based your argument on the amount of math a subject has, while math itself is doing quite well and degrees with math in them are doing also quite well for females which renders your point moot.

>>8920452
>One part of one half of society (women who recognize the social bias) can't overcome the social biases created by part of the entire society.
Yeah, that's generally it. Social biases can change when society as a whole (not a minority of the society) recognizes and actively tries to change the bias.
But women do resist anti-STEM sentiments, that's what all those STEM promotion programs and scholarships are for - many are started by women to help other women. In the 70s, women protested the social bias that kept women out of workplaces. And once a large portion of society agreed, this social bias was broken. Employers began hiring women and hiring discrimination laws got stronger. You could probably poll the women in the 50s and most would say they want be homemakers. Equivalently, you could poll men in the 50s and most would say that "a woman's place in right there now in her home", to quote Ray Charles.
Nowadays, due to a conscious changing of social attitudes, most say differently.

Someone born in the 1920s is going to "want" different things than someone born in the 2000s.

>>8920369
You sound like a dick but I kinda agree with your last point. Very few of my friends ended up in a STEM career path and they surely did not encourage me toward it as a kid. If anything, they actively discouraged studying, especially of math. My parents/teachers/guidance counselors/whatever didn't seem to give a shit at all what field I was pursuing.

I feel as though I ended up as an engineer entirely of my own volition, and I don't see any reason why a woman can't do the same.

>>8920556
Exactly, and quite frankly anyone saying anything different is being sexist. "Women need extra help to get into STEM" is implying that they are emotionally weaker than men. If men can do it why can't women? They can. They just don't want to. It's disrespectful to their abilities to say they need help doing this, when they can do it if they want and many do.

My sister wants to be a cosmetologist and I am in STEM. I helped her with her homework any time I needed. I asked many times "Why aren't you doing your math homework". Way more encouragement than I ever got some anyone. But she wants to cut hair and do makeup, literally.

Sorry that's not my fault and it's not the fault of men or society, it's her choice. And she gets offended when you imply it's a bad choice so it's offensive to suggest she "should" be doing STEM

Whatever

File: Screenshot_106.jpg (46KB, 559x473px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 559x473px

>>8920556
Not that guy, but I do agree with what you're saying. I never had anyone pushing me in one direction or another in school. I was always a "bright" child which meant that unless I participated in extracurricular programs and things (I was dumb and didn't because 'muh friends') I pretty much got just as ignored by people who are supposed to encourage you to do things in school.

If you are bright and lazy it is very easy to slip through the cracks without ever having to apply yourself.

I was never pushed in the direction of STEM, and relatively arbitrarily chose it in my first year of college. I'm very glad that I chose it, and I don't see how it would be any more complicated for a female to do the same thing I did.

The women at my school either blend in and are treated equally or get varying degrees of extra attention from the guys on campus. There is a med program filled with normies on the first floor, there are plenty of females in that (most of them becoming nurses or EMTs) but none of them ever interact with the STEM majors.

>>8917109
You sound like you have never been outside your house before.

>>8917146
Because women don't like STEM, simple. Why aren't there more men in child care? Go get your degree in STEM and stop shitposting if you're so interested in the "equality of the sexes".

>>8916972
Honestly it feels like they already are. They get tons of 'women in science'-type awards that men are not eligible for. They are often given preferential treatment by older male professors. There are constant events acknowledging their presence, and the real kicker?

They're not even a goddamn minority. 80% of my lab is girls. I went to a conference on magnetic resonance a few weeks ago, it had a "women in science" event despite the fact that there was actually a pretty good 50/50 spread of males vs females there.

We're not living in the 80s anymore. A talented woman can accomplish the same thing as an equally talented man if she puts in the same amount of work. Why do we still treat them as if they're 'special'?

>>8917013
>starts a /pol/ thread
>tells people to go back to /pol/
Threads supporting affirmative action or preferential treatment of different classes of people are not science. There's nobody stopping women from becoming scientists except other women.

>>8917037
that guy isn't the norm, there is not a grand conspiracy keeping women from STEM. If Saudia Arabia and Iran are letting women go into STEM what makes you think democracies are not?

What I don't understand is how come there is an increasingly number of transgender people getting involved in science when they outright denied biology and the way science designed them. I think before we can advanced as a scientific species we should first eliminated those who deny science such as those trannies.

>>8920983
>all transgenders have the same view on life

Not all of them are tumblrites anon. And I haven't seen a single tranny in my five years of working in science and attending large conferences.

Besides you have conservative Christian 'biologists' and vegetarians who have no issue with animal research as well.

>>8916972
>the problem in our society is that women are being pushed into woman fields!
>instead we should push them to do something else that we think is better!
just remove the stigma and barriers for entry
then let them do what they want.

>>8916972
Respect women's right to choose not to go into stem, shitlord

>>8916972
You shouldn't prioritize any person based on any criteria that isn't intelligence and work ethic. Fuck off with this trash.
Sage.

>>8919673
>Do you seriously not think that SOCIETAL pressures could have an effect on women's roles in SOCIETY?

None of that removes the fact that a lot of how we socialize and organize is inert in our biology and genetics. Explain to me why countries that have the best records on Women's rights still have massive discrepancies in gender parity in many fields that even with massive amounts of work to encourage women into them are not really budging. The socialization boogeyman is a lazy catch all for why society isn't perfect in the minds of ideologues. Women tend to not want to go into these fields, not because they are oppressed and not allowed to but because they don't want to (on average). Women and men are different, this is exactly the reason there are fields dominated by women also to pretend that millions of years of evolution and different selective pressures on the sexes will for some reason have no effect on the domain of the brain is fantasy.

>>8920556
>Mom didn't give a shit about my grades at all as long as I wasn't about to get kicked out of school
>Somehow had the motivation to get good grades

>>8920968
Black anon here going to transfer soon. Do colleges also treat blacks like special snowflakes? While I am morally against that I will take anything I can get if it gives me a higher chance to succeed in my field of interest.

>>8920291

> Now that you're the victims, do you understand?

> Now that you're the victims...

> ... the victims...

This is stupid...

...

If people talking smack about you dissuades you from pursuing a certain field or activity then you obviously either weren't very passionate about said field or activity, or you are simply a spineless coward whose hopes and aspirations can be snuffed out by mild social pressure...

>>8921255
Of course. I will also take advantage of this system.

>>8921531
Okay, you still don't get it. It's not about being spineless. When you're a kid, someone tells you that some activity is not meant for you, so you accept that and move on while others in the correct group work at it from a young age and become quite good at it.

For example, white boy wants to play basketball and is ushered towards soccer instead because that's more for him.

man this entire thread is retarded. just let women do what they want. don't force them into stem fields then insult them because they don't, and don't make it easier for women to get into stem fields because everyone should do an equal amount of work.

all of the females in my classes do the exact same amount of work as everyone else and they get the exact same grades as everyone else baka. gender literally doesn't pertain to it at all, except in fundamental sex differences. just get the best fucking people for the job. it's not that hard.

>>8916980
>It's not their fault, their is no evolutionary biological nor social benefits for them to actually master anything that is difficult
What is this claim based on? You seem to assume the gender roles you are familiar with are culturally universal. They are not.

>>8920556
>I did it, so everyone can!
Not everyone is exactly like you.

a man can shut himself in for 7 years to solve the poincare conjecture and then post in on the internet, a woman can fucking spend 4 years in college with decent human beings but not decent enough for her standards.

>>8921254

i didn't get good grades in high school or even my first couple of years of college that i wasted getting an AA. it wasn't until i made a conscious decision to pursue engineering that i actually started to apply myself

>>8916980
>ignoring the fact that women don't like critical thinking.

stem isnt critical thinking lol

There's no social need for them to do so. If they want to get into STEM fine. If they want to ban males from STEM so they have an easier time getting into a program, dropping standards along the way, it's a problem for scientific progress.

Besides that, their career comes to an almost grinding halt when they decide in their early 30's to have a child, because they're getting old and soon enough their window of time to have children is going to run out. Now they need to balance work and family, which is extremely difficult.

>>8920968
Suck it up snowflake. The last thing anyone needs is for men to start crying about not being treated equally. If you want to succeed then do a good fucking job.

I am in a lab with 100% women besides myself, my boss is a woman. I had to sit in lab meeting and listen to them all discuss some shitty PNAS papers about how women are treated unfairly and there's implicit bias in academia and you know what I realized: that paper was harming them more then helping.

If you submit a grant or manuscript and it's rejected it's tempting to blame the reviewers or some bullshit excuse. It's natural I would say to protect the ego. But that is delusional. If the paper was better, if the grant was rock solid then it would have gotten funded. The only thing you have to ask yourself in that case is "how do I make this better?"

Mitigating blame away from yourself is pathological.

>>8916972

>tfw in STEM
>women have been in every lab
>"women-only" awards, scholarships, fellowships, etc.
>some hired solely because they are female or 'underrepresented'

There are many really talented women in STEM, but many are also there solely because they are female and their talent doesn't match the position they've achieved. Makes outperforming them that much easier.