People of color didn't become scientists because somebody made a chemistry kit in 1937 featuring an Egyptian slave. Girls didn't become scientists because some companies science competition described them as caring and nurturing during WWII.
I've also heard different versions of the clock story.
Not saying everybody has an equal start - for sure not everybody is or was encouraged to become a scientist to the same degree. But it is not really an external force (or patriarchy and white supremacy) that is the culprit...
Pity, it would actually be interesting to discuss how to encourage kids into science, without the leading victim narrative.
This is a painfully restrictive way to view the world. What's the harm in looking at this problem as a complex system that we can work on until we reach a solution? There are without a doubt societal pressure on women and people of color not to pursue careers in STEM. All you have to do is open your eyes a little bit and it's obvious.
As the stereotypical white-cis-male-scientist, this sort of statement has always bugged me. I was pushed from science at every turn- multiple teachers said I would be no good, wasn't allowed to take advanced courses in HS, was seen as a wannabe by friends and peers, but at every step I also saw a concerted effort to get women and minorities into my field of choice (physics). Support groups, gender or race only clubs (never white or male), even banners celebrating women in science.
In social settings, women & girls were always praised highly when they decided to pursue maths- whereas guys got the "what are you, a show off?" treatment.
What are these societal pressures that exist "without a doubt"? Every time I've tried to dig into the subject, I can only find ephemera and anecdotal testimony. Pressures echo from generations gone by, I know, but to what extent? And I know I haven't lived the life of someone systematically oppressed, but at least in the area I group up in, it seemed the exact opposite was true- systematic uplifting.
I'm not trying to say that they don't face any hardships, though I may not be privy to them, but rather that this whole problem could be rephrased without the women/minority angle. "People are discouraged from going in to science." is a better way to look at it, imo.
Stereotypical childhood toys, gender stereotypes that widely persist despite the efforts of the people making those "women in science" banners and starting those clubs, the standard difficulties of entering a group or field where nobody looks like you, very widespread reports from women of discrimination and harassment, several studies where professors are less likely to respond to emails from people with minority-sounding names, etc.
You really don't see any of these stereotypes in your daily life? Why are physics departments 80% men [1]? Just random chance?
A lot of that is anecdotes, like the harassment reports. You assume that all men are automatically welcomed into the high ranks of science, which is untrue. But they can't spin a story of "they rejected me because I was a man".
The toys might simply reflect preferences, why would companies be interested in pushing gender stereotypes? Yes, maybe more boys got a home computer for Christmas than girls - but how many girls had that home computer on their wish list?
Entering fields were nobody looks like you: maybe the women from Harvard is more similar to the man from Harvard than another man from community college, though? It's feminist theory to claim the difference between men and women is such a huge separator.
Some studies have some merit, like the response rate according to names, but it is not really enough to chalk it all up to discrimination.
As for the 80%, no it is not random chance - men and women are different.
My not-validated theory to explain it: maths is hard, let's go shopping! (Translation: women have other options).
> You assume that all men are automatically welcomed into the high ranks of science, which is untrue.
No I don't.
> Yes, maybe more boys got a home computer for Christmas than girls - but how many girls had that home computer on their wish list?
Exactly, I'm glad you see the problem. Everyone unconsciously adopts stereotypes based on how people around them act, and what they see in the world. Children are especially susceptible.
> Entering fields were nobody looks like you: maybe the women from Harvard is more similar to the man from Harvard than another man from community college, though?
Good point, class and upbringing are diversity issues too. You do see a lot of efforts to introduce computing and sciences to low-income schools and neighborhoods, which is great.
> Some studies have some merit, like the response rate according to names, but it is not really enough to chalk it all up to discrimination.
Nothing is 100% discrimination, but where it's a problem, it should be addressed.
> As for the 80%, no it is not random chance - men and women are different.
> My not-validated theory to explain it: maths is hard, let's go shopping! (Translation: women have other options).
Oh, I see. Should have read your whole comment before I started writing a response.
Then what exactly is it you're doing? Because to me it looks like you're trying to somehow excuse the way society is structured that keeps women and POC out of STEM, and push the wrong explanation that it's somehow their fault for not choosing STEM in the first place. This isn't a productive vantage point to look at this problem from.
Obviously things have been changing slowly, but my point is that if you have ever talked to a woman or person of color about their experience in this career path, there would be mountains of really disturbing stories and examples of pressure/patronizing behavior/flat out harassment that keeps them from feeling welcome in the career they've been studying for sometimes decades.
Not to mention all the subconscious biases we have related to the fact that girls never really had the social support to keep pursuing their interest in tech from a young age, while boys did.
I really encourage you to talk to some people around you and ask about their experiences, not because I'm blaming you personally, or all white men personally, for causing these issues. But because as a society we need to be much more aware of the larger forces at play in how our world is structured, and take part of the responsibility of fixing them.
"without a doubt"? Well I have doubts. It all depends on the time, of course - but even in former times it might have not been so much discrimination (a ka the thought "women are too stupid or belong into the kitchen") as the idea being so far fetched as to not be considered. This in turn might be an artifact of times when it really wasn't a sensible choice - for example if women were at high risk of childbirth (or missing out productive years because of maternity) so investing in their education would have a lower return (which became less of an issue with improved economic situation).
I especially doubt the common advertising narrative. I think it is much more likely that companies simply advertised what they thought would sell best (as in maybe boys being more likely to buy Chemistry kits), rather than them having a budget for pushing the patriarchy.
I think you are strawmanning the article. The point about the Ethiopian (not Egyptian) slave is that it is indicative of the fact that no black would be in a position to purchase that chemistry set. It is a historical fact that blacks were discriminated against and chemistry sets not being marketed to them is just one consequence of it. Don't know why you are so bent on denying history in favor of pushing your victimhood narrative.
My guess would be that the Egyptian slave thing stems from another time where it was exotic to travel and only adventurers would go to foreign lands and bring back people from there (slave or apprentice - would like to see the original kit). And there was a lot of mysticism around exotic countries, so having such a person on your mystery show (alchemy) would simply increase the effect. Yes, it sounds stupid today, but we are talking about a time before the invention of Google, antibiotics or routine international flights.
I'm sure other than that PoCs generally had less access to chemistry kits, probably mostly because they couldn't afford them. But I don't think that Chemistry kit was the issue.
I've also heard different versions of the clock story.
Not saying everybody has an equal start - for sure not everybody is or was encouraged to become a scientist to the same degree. But it is not really an external force (or patriarchy and white supremacy) that is the culprit...
Pity, it would actually be interesting to discuss how to encourage kids into science, without the leading victim narrative.