>There is no evil cabal of men trying to keep us out. The vast majority of men in the CS world are falling all over themselves trying to cater to women.
I'm not saying there's an evil cabal. To the contrary, nearly all of sexism is subconscious. There are a few people that consciously hate women. We call these people misogynists. Most people are sexist. Most people are not, however, misogynists. And falling over themselves trying to cater to women? Why is it, then, that when Jeff Atwood posted his "What Men Can Do" article, and was called out by feminists for mansplaining, (and Mr. Atwood himself was very deliberately sexist in the comments to boot) that the feminists were viciously attacked by a sea of technically oriented white men?
>What are you basing that on?
Why do you think there are fewer women in STEM fields to begin with? Because they genuinely aren't capable? No, it's because from a very early age most people who are born female are forced into the female gender role. Males are forced into the typical male gender role. And yes, the female gender role includes low self esteem and male dependance.
>As long as we refuse to acknowledge reality, that will never happen. We have more power in society than men. We elect the government, we set the agenda, the laws are catered to us. Men still haven't even escaped from basic gender norms.
So you make the claim that women have more power in society than men, but go on to claim that you singlehandedly elect the government, set the agenda, AND cater the laws to yourself? Then why exactly is the country in the process of taking a very anti-feminist approach to reproductive rights? Why is government so male dominated? Why are so many fields dominated by one gender, be it male or female? Putting aside the fact that you don't quite understand what gender roles/norms are, is it not concerning to you that government is an extremely male dominated field and yet you believe you're in power?
You also seem to imply that I identify as female. I do not.
>Why is it, then, that when Jeff Atwood posted his "What Men Can Do" article, and was called out by feminists for mansplaining, (and Mr. Atwood himself was very deliberately sexist in the comments to boot) that the feminists were viciously attacked by a sea of technically oriented white men?
What an absurdly loaded question. Because feminists were attacking an ally over nothing. "Mansplaining" is not a thing, it is a term made up specifically by sexists to dismiss people they do not wish to be heard.
>Why do you think there are fewer women in STEM fields to begin with?
Because most women do not wish to be in STEM fields.
>No, it's because from a very early age most people who are born female are forced into the female gender role
Again, what are you basing that on? All scientific evidence suggests that gender roles are deeply rooted in our genes. There is absolutely no evidence to support the widely discredited nurture only hypothesis.
>And yes, the female gender role includes low self esteem and male dependance.
No it does not.
>Then why exactly is the country in the process of taking a very anti-feminist approach to reproductive rights?
It isn't. And why do you conflate "anti-feminist" with anti woman? Most women are not feminists, and do not support feminism.
>Why is government so male dominated?
Because few women wish to be in government. Notice how often we get elected when we run?
>Putting aside the fact that you don't quite understand what gender roles/norms are, is it not concerning to you that government is an extremely male dominated field and yet you believe you're in power?
Putting aside your condescending lie, no, why would that concern me? I do not care what sex organs the people I elect posses, I care that they do what we elect them to do. They overwhelmingly introduce, support, and vote for things that women want. Even when they are outright sexist things that women should not be seeking like remedies to the mythological wage gap.
>You also seem to imply that I identify as female.
Even if it were true, "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" would beg the question. Why do they not wish to be in STEM fields? One straightforward factor might be the isolation they'd experience in being a tiny minority.
The term "feminist" is being tossed around pretty casually, too. That's convenient for both sides of the argument but unfortunate for truth-seeking, since the term can mean whatever the arguer wants it to be. I presume most women do in fact want equal rights, for instance. Most women probably don't want the end of all men.
The term "STEM" is also being used haphazardly. Your assertion that "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" doesn't square with the facts. What would have been more accurate would be to say that most women don't want to work in computer science. But that's a less defensible gap; it's hard to come up with a compelling reason why women would want to be chemists, doctors, or actuaries, but not computer scientists.
It raises the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. The most straightforward factor is that men and women are actually different. Many studies have shown that innate gender preferences manifest in infancy. I knew I was different from most girls when I was very young. The vast majority of other women I've met at work and at conferences have been similar. We were into "boy stuff". That's perfectly fine. But it doesn't mean the girls who are not into "boy stuff" are broken and need to be fixed.
This argument is so vague that it could be used to justify virtually any gender discrimination. If this issue is so simple and straightforward as to be disposed of in a 90 word comment, why aren't you able to connect any specific difference between men and women to the computer science field, or to explain why women are so comfortable in other STEM fields?
That aside: yes, I was intending to suggest that your previous argument was fallacious. I don't believe the premise of your argument was valid. But even had it been, it would still not answer the question it pretends to answer.
We're comfortable in CS too. That's the point. I don't see how you figure I was begging the question, but at this point I also don't care. Being told I don't know what it is like to be a woman by men gets pretty old.
You can feel free to substitute, with my apology, any other shorthand representing the sharp difference in female participation in CS as opposed to other STEM fields. I didn't choose that word carefully and am not wedded to it. Would it then be possible to respond substantively to my comment?
This exchange between imanaccount247 and tctapek is incredibly fascinating.
One the one hand, we have a female who has a very accurate understanding of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, genetics, and logic. Her arguments are logically coherent and validated by centuries of empirical science.
On the other hand, we have a male who has violated Occam's Razor so many times that he has completely annihilated any hope of a coherent hypothesis. His arguments imply conspiracy theories behind the formation of family, society, government, and history itself. All reason is abandoned, and science ignored.
Now the question is...does it really matter which position the male took vs. the female? One of these arguments is far more coherent than the other. Which position an individual supports reveals far more about the person than about the true nature of sexual dimorphism, since the laws of the universe do not suddenly change to cater to the opinions of a few misinformed primates.
EDIT: Hello tctapek! Thanks for the downvote. In case you one day want to educate yourself about the science behind human biology (and its numerous resultant consequences), here are a few books you'll no doubt find elucidating:
For some advanced reading, you can move onto the Extended Phenotype by Dawkins, and the references contained therein.
Enjoy, and remember, the world is yours to discover! Science will always be waiting.
EDIT 2: If you lack the patience for all that, here (http://edge.org/memberbio/helena_cronin) is an expert in the field who explains all of imanaccount247's assertions in video format. Enjoy!
>On the other hand, we have a male who has violated Occam's Razor so many times that he has completely annihilated any hope of a coherent hypothesis. His arguments imply conspiracy theories behind the formation of family, society, government, and history itself. All reason is abandoned, and science ignored.
It is typical position of an "enlightened reasonable conservative". A very successful and stable position in modern society (and on this site in particular). At first look one may think that extremal morons are the ones presenting main obstacle to progress, yet looking just a bit more one can see that it is the reasonable conservatives in the middle who form the humongous main unmovable mass.
>One the one hand, we have a female who has a very accurate understanding of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, genetics, and logic. Her arguments are logically coherent and validated by centuries of empirical science.
all these coherent arguments are just like waves splashing against the stone. No chance. It isn't a game of logic and reason, even though it may look so.
>Because most women do not wish to be in STEM fields.
I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases. That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field.
The argument is that traditionally underrepresented groups ( obvious things like race, gender) might benefit from being exposed to prominent figures in the desired field early on.
I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up. And even if it was true that fewer women wanted to be in STEM fields, is this simply a reinforcement of the fact that few exist in the field to begin with?
>I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases
Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture.
>That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field.
Except I did grow up like that, and it did not influence what fields I was interested in at all.
>I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up.
Many studies have shown innate gender preferences begin before socialization. It seems unlikely that STEM is somehow uniquely affected by it. Especially since the number of women in CS has been going down as we've been making such a big fuss about women in CS.
> Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture.
Do you mind providing links/references that support the claim? That would be very helpful for the overall argument.
I also grew up in a similar fashion. But I don't think we can accurately extrapolate our anecdotal data over an entire population, no?
I agree that it is hard to tell whether something is nature vs nurture and it is rather short-sighted for us to blindly assume that all disinterest by a group in a field is due to nurture, but I don't have hard data backing it up. Mind sharing if you have any?
>Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture.
Is there? Where? And if it truly is nature over nurture, then why is it that women are interested in STEM at all? Why isn't the field entirely male instead of majority male? And the answer is, because people are different. Yes, they have different preferences. Yes, those preferences differ by gender. No, it is not solidly linked to genetics.
I have a very hard time believing you are trying to have a serious conversation here. "If men are on average taller than women, then why aren't all men taller than all women?". Surely you must realize the absurdity of your question. Yes, those preferences differ by sex and it is solidly linked to genetics. These preferences are exhibited before any socialization has occurred. Even other apes exhibit similar differences in preferences, can you seriously try to claim that is due to sexism?
I'm not saying there's an evil cabal. To the contrary, nearly all of sexism is subconscious. There are a few people that consciously hate women. We call these people misogynists. Most people are sexist. Most people are not, however, misogynists. And falling over themselves trying to cater to women? Why is it, then, that when Jeff Atwood posted his "What Men Can Do" article, and was called out by feminists for mansplaining, (and Mr. Atwood himself was very deliberately sexist in the comments to boot) that the feminists were viciously attacked by a sea of technically oriented white men?
>What are you basing that on?
Why do you think there are fewer women in STEM fields to begin with? Because they genuinely aren't capable? No, it's because from a very early age most people who are born female are forced into the female gender role. Males are forced into the typical male gender role. And yes, the female gender role includes low self esteem and male dependance.
>As long as we refuse to acknowledge reality, that will never happen. We have more power in society than men. We elect the government, we set the agenda, the laws are catered to us. Men still haven't even escaped from basic gender norms.
So you make the claim that women have more power in society than men, but go on to claim that you singlehandedly elect the government, set the agenda, AND cater the laws to yourself? Then why exactly is the country in the process of taking a very anti-feminist approach to reproductive rights? Why is government so male dominated? Why are so many fields dominated by one gender, be it male or female? Putting aside the fact that you don't quite understand what gender roles/norms are, is it not concerning to you that government is an extremely male dominated field and yet you believe you're in power?
You also seem to imply that I identify as female. I do not.