First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply Why don't women like science?
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 1/17/16

PrinceJudar wrote:
Well that brings up the question of whether enjoyment is truly related to biological imperatives and to what degree? Sometimes biological behaviors may be harmful to those around us and that is why we do not listen even when it whispers to "fuck her against the wall". In other matters, it may prevent progress or risk taking. Other contexts still, opposing may be the rational superior. The brain is a complex matter--self-consciousness even more so. You say it be going against yourself--but is what you feel truly yourself, or what you think? Is it not the weighing we do and decisions we make that makes humans such complex individuals? Sometimes what we feel is best, or inclined to do, is not the better. I may be inclined to hurt or harm another human, but is that really 'myself'?--Or simply a passing feeling easily smacked down with a second's worth of thought?

Choosing a career you enjoy is certainly wise to advise, unless that enjoyment is found in a career that can barely financially support yourself let alone the family you have. Context, Weighing. Decision. Sometimes the imperative is the better route--sometimes not.

If there is it would indeed explain it. It just wouldn't necessarily forever be bound that way.

P.S. The sarcasm is real in that game lol



Of course there are times when listening to instincts isn't exactly a good idea, but career choice is typically not one of them. Choosing to go into teaching doesn't really have the negative consequences of murdering someone. Like you said, money is really the only key factor which would provide substantial reason to lead someone away from a job they enjoy, however, the path is not binary. There are many fields which involve people skills of all different pay grades and many fields which involve logic skills of all different pay grades.

Again, the heart of my point is that while the decision of whether or not to follow biology is your own, stronger benefits tend to exist for following your biology than going against it (in this context). Assuming the science holds, that explains why there are more men in STEM fields than women, and explains why female participation in STEM fields tends to decline as freedom of job choice increases. Biology is a key factor.

PS: When I speak about Biology, I'm not specifically speaking about instincts, I am speaking about all the complicated processes that are involved in the nature side of the "nature vs nurture" discussion. For example, when a person has an urge to "fuck her against the wall", it is not them going against biology when they decide that isn't really a good idea. There are many factors which go into that decision such as hormone levels, empathy, risk taking/assessment, impulse control, aggression etc (which do have a largely biological component), mixed with their understanding of the world and how they were brought up.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Online
Posted 1/17/16

sundin13 wrote:


Usually career choice is better towards the most enjoyed, although I'm not sure how much of that is nature or nurture. Consider however a conjecture that women simply have more luxury in career choices. Somewhat conversely, consider that men have less luxury in career choices.

In this context however it is hard to say how much of 'enjoyment' is biologically driven. Consider how many originally enjoy one thing early and life and then later lose taste for it, or vice versa. As a young child I hated math, but as I grew older I grew increasingly more fond of it.

I agree that biology at least plays a part (though incalculable degree) in the current predicament--only that change is quite possible and therefore formal equal opportunity is due. Which I'm sure you agree to.

13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

PrinceJudar wrote:
Usually career choice is better towards the most enjoyed, although I'm not sure how much of that is nature or nurture. Consider however a conjecture that women simply have more luxury in career choices. Somewhat conversely, consider that men have less luxury in career choices.

In this context however it is hard to say how much of 'enjoyment' is biologically driven. Consider how many originally enjoy one thing early and life and then later lose taste for it, or vice versa. As a young child I hated math, but as I grew older I grew increasingly more fond of it.

I agree that biology at least plays a part (though incalculable degree) in the current predicament--only that change is quite possible and therefore formal equal opportunity is due. Which I'm sure you agree to.



Change is possible (although I believe we will need a lot of time in addition to major changes in focus to reach 50/50 male to female in STEM fields), but isn't strictly necessary once equal opportunity is achieved (which I believe it already has been achieved and then some with some research suggesting that women are hired 2:1 over men in tenure track STEM positions). I don't see people taking the jobs they want to do to be a problem. If a certain demographic of people choose to enter a certain kind of field, I see no reason why we should be complaining that they aren't going into other fields instead. If women choose to go into non-STEM fields, or if women don't get jobs in STEM fields because they don't meet the expectations of employers, I don't think there is any ethical or egalitarian obligation for the STEM fields to change to better suit these women.

Very little of the discussion regarding equality in STEM fields surrounds equality of opportunity. It tends to surround equality of outcome, and I don't believe that is a noble goal and I don't believe that any means of skewing equality of opportunity to reach equality of outcome should be considered a good thing.

PS: Changing as you age isn't necessarily defying biology either. People's brains and bodies change as they age leading to enjoyment of different things as they age. That is to be expected within biologically determinism (again, not supporting that viewpoint, just saying that what you are saying doesn't disprove it).
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Online
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

sundin13 wrote:


Yeah I mentioned that earlier on in the thread actually, hah. I'm certainly against equality of outcome politicking.

PS. Kind of hard to counter the 'predetermined' argument since it can shape-shift into the end result as needed...lol

For example A->C is predetermined as much as A->B etc etc

13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 1/17/16

PrinceJudar wrote:
PS. Kind of hard to counter the 'predetermined' argument since it can shape-shift into the end result as needed...lol


I mean, thats kind of the point. It is impossible to divorce who you are from your biology, and because of that, it isn't really possible to "go against biology" so to speak. The only way that would be possible if someone else were to be manipulating your life choices. Like you said before, it isn't really something that is possible to quantify as nature/nurture are so completely intertwined, but it isn't really possible for a person to make decisions which are free from either factor...
4506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16
Even though there's been some change genders are still nurtured towards specific interests. It's not that women dislike science just that they're discouraged from looking at it as a study/career choice.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Online
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

sundin13 wrote:

I mean, thats kind of the point. It is impossible to divorce who you are from your biology, and because of that, it isn't really possible to "go against biology" so to speak. The only way that would be possible if someone else were to be manipulating your life choices. Like you said before, it isn't really something that is possible to quantify as nature/nurture are so completely intertwined, but it isn't really possible for a person to make decisions which are free from either factor...


The argument itself is a bit obtusely difficult to counter because of its argument of inevitability. It basically puts into question what is an act of free will versus a predetermined act? Then we get into the debate of whether humans have any free will, or if it is all simply predetermined.

It's a spiraling argument that tries to grab every conclusion, every end product, and thus must be either held to its criteria (defining exception) or provide the argument for all.

A->B? (Determined!)
A->C? (Determined!)
B->D->E? (Determined!)

What is not therefore determined? What separates it from free will? The only other case would be to make the conjecture that humans have no free will and that all is predetermined by a unfathomable amount of variables. Though I'd argue such is nearly self defeating since the very question of it would be predetermined and the notion is a bit incoherent.

So I suppose the argument going against biology is only as coherent as going with biology. Essentially the question ends up being trivially true (one way or the other) until a line is drawn between nature versus nurture (which I highly doubt it being so gray, intertwined as you have mentioned, and complex).

When it comes to nature versus nurture the only answer that can be rationally provided is perhaps and perhaps. Yet both are subject to change, therefore if both futures are malleable--then it begs the question, well, is it relevant? Is the quantification even necessary? The acknowledgement of both variables and they're incalculable factoring is only as far as we are able to honestly conclude without conjecture.

My only argument is that humans have free will, not a slave to their natures or nurturing. Factors and variables (such as nature/nurture) play a role in facilitation and predictability, but do not determine the outcome--because of free will.

So it's better said there exists a divorce from the biologically derived predicted outcome, rather than from biology itself because of it being encompassing and unidentifiable in effect. Probably more or less what I was attempting to get at.

9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16
>People here arguing biological determinism as an actual fucking thing
>Top Kek
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

Biological determinism is just a bullshit excuse for people to justify sexism in many fields of work.
4980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 1/17/16
I'm not sure, though in my country it may be to do with different schools. My all girls school did not offer some science subjects that the boys school did and instead had things like home economics, which the boys couldn't do(perhaps it's changed but I doubt it)

That said, I've since moved to work in a hospital in the UK and most of the doctors and med students are women(usually muslim or eastern european too). I worked in a female ward and a surprising amount of patients were engineers (my own sexism showing?) . My dad is a geologist and the amount of women coming into that and the environmental science field has grown enormously in the last decade. Most of his staff are now female (and no, there is no affirmative action in play here before someone inevitably says it)
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

PrinceJudar wrote:
Female and male brains are actually wired minimally different. Estimated around less than 1%. The differences between individuals is actually much greater. Not that aren't trends, but there's a ton of overlap. It is more correct to say that 'different things tend to make women and men tick differently'.
well some tick also because of body reasons I guess you maybe know more about it before if you know what I mean.

and would you not say that females (less the "tomboy/boy-ish type") to try to make it for the future (meaning less phyical overload and some got weaker bodies).
For the future as either the hope of being a mother, or in the general future?

lets just say I know females quitting heavy or medium phyical work places to more calm ones, and none would really go into building jobs (I think there is maybe less then 1% females inside that, but know a few that have gone for cars to fix them, less restrains and cind of works all in all) and something more I forgot.

miserykitsune wrote:
That said, I've since moved to work in a hospital in the UK and most of the doctors and med students are women(usually muslim or eastern european too).
yeah its mostly like that.
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16
Awful presumptive, but from the perspective of history and tradition that is the cause, "traditional" women's roles, etc.

As others have said, I think it's more of an individual preference or competency than of a gender... and stereotypes are just a matter of traditional patterns than subtle biological predilections that may exist. Its not so much women hate it as much as they're brought up to want tto be teachers and social workers. But now that's changing for the better, so who cares?
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Online
Posted 1/17/16

megahobbit wrote:

>People here arguing biological determinism as an actual fucking thing
>Top Kek
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

Biological determinism is just a bullshit excuse for people to justify sexism in many fields of work.


I've actually mentioned this at the beginning of the thread (female and male brain minimal difference that is). I don't mind the theory or making conjectures based off of biology, but the crutch use of 'evolution' annoys me just the same. It's become more bandwagon and dogmatic--excusatory over explanatory.

However, so are some arguments that the only factor is sexism with hand wavy provided proofing. There's no critical thought into either approach. Major change is historically slow--lack of immediate result does not indicate a substantial problem. The doors are open now and less impatience needs to be met in regards to its developing outcome. The fear mongering only stagnates results more than it benefits.





65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16
This topic I think is a bit interesting. Why aren't there more women who like science, tech, and engineering and go into those fields? I don't think majors in school are really a good sign of where you're going to end up, but there are definitely fewer women in tech jobs.

When I was in school I was in math and computer science and I agree it seemed there really weren't a lot of women in those courses. But when I started my career in tech I wound up working under women who were great team leads and mentors at my first two jobs (one came from engineering and the other from accounting). I really developed quite a bit of good technical and professional know-how because I learned from them and worked with them. I absolutely wound up better off in my career because of their guidance and I do think if more women were in tech the field would be better at developing new folks coming in.

My guess is, if more women figure out these are good jobs that they're more than capable of filling, this will balance out. That being said there is quite a bit of a technical hurdle in these jobs and I think sometimes people in general just get turned off by the amount they have to learn. But decent pay is a powerful enough motivator for a lot of people.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Online
Posted 1/17/16

Freddy96NO wrote:
well some tick also because of body reasons I guess you maybe know more about it before if you know what I mean.

and would you not say that females (less the "tomboy/boy-ish type") to try to make it for the future (meaning less phyical overload and some got weaker bodies).
For the future as either the hope of being a mother, or in the general future?

lets just say I know females quitting heavy or medium phyical work places to more calm ones, and none would really go into building jobs (I think there is maybe less then 1% females inside that, but know a few that have gone for cars to fix them, less restrains and cind of works all in all) and something more I forgot.


Some women do factor in pregnancy and their desires to raise their children (especially the early years). That is quite a big part of it. My personal intention is to save up money until come time for children. My income will drop around then--certain assholes will blame the industry for sexism rather than my choice to put family over career. I still intend to work, mind you, but I also want quite a few kids--which means quite a number of work leaves. There's a reason the 'wage gap' gets much larger after the age of 28 or so. It's actually fairly even before 'kid time'. 'Boyish' types have wombs just the same.

That's not to say women and men 'tick' differently, you'd 'tick' similar if you had calculate pregnancy and giving birth, fuckin' lol.

Physical labor is more body difference, sure. Men and women's health is significantly different. It's also pretty well established that generally women take less risks then men, presently.



15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 1/17/16 , edited 1/17/16

PrinceJudar wrote: I still intend to work, mind you, but I also want quite a few kids--which means quite a number of work leaves. There's a reason the 'wage gap' gets much larger after the age of 28 or so.

It's actually fairly even before 'kid time'. 'Boyish' types have wombs just the same.
quite the few kids ey?

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.