The prevailing macho culture of the people within STEM fields discourages many women from the start. Since you're not a person in a STEM field, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
I took an animal care course which is female dominated. There is a "fem culture" within that field discouraging men from the start. Since you're not a person in that field, I don't expect you to know that.
How are women being discouraged from society in those fields? Why is a "macho" culture existing if it is true? Did you consider the reason why it's like that is because an overwhelming majority of people working to gain entry in those fields and so gain position in those fields are male? The same could be said about nurses, could it not, simply in the reverse of a "macho culture"?
Explain your point. You and I both know I don't work with statements alone.
"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
Yes, I have. I can massively simplify if you need me to:
Premise 1: STEM has a macho culture.
Premise 2: Most women are not attracted to macho cultures any more than most men are attracted to feminized cultures.
( If this is not common sense to you, evidence for those premises be found in this Wikipedia entry and in the references at the bottom of the page and all over the rest of the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Explanations_for_low_representation_of_women )
Logical conclusion: Few women are attracted to STEM fields.
That is an explanation.
That Wikipedia link also lists lots of other explanations. Note how none of those are "women just aren't interested in STEM, okay?".
Yes, and I already addressed that by saying maybe the reason why it has a "macho culture", if there is one (I was wanting an explanation as to how it is a macho culture), that maybe that culture was established due to the field being male dominated, not that it has a macho culture which attracts men to those fields making it male dominated field. So even if this "macho culture" did exist and was taken away, where does it show women would still be interested in those fields in the first place and it doesn't remain a male dominated field that then later created a "macho-culture" due to that?
You seem to have the impression that if a field is not equal, then there must be some sort of societal problem with it rather than sexual dimorphism, in which one can say "Well, there isn't an equal representation in prison, ergo there is a socital issue of which makes men the majority in prison.
As for the Wiki link, I don't read Wiki, as I am sure you may know why someone wouldn't, so link the specific references in a response if you are willing. Not clawing through it all to find a few bits that are relevant to the discussion.
I see, you're looking for examples of macho culture in STEM. Most of the social activities surrounding STEM communities cater to masculine interests since men are the majority. Most STEM instructors are men, and provide a masculine culture by treating male students as significantly more naturally competent than female students. This is shown in recent, Western research ("Rethinking Single Sex Teaching" by Ivinson and Murphy, 2007).
I don't assume anything - I look at explanations as rationally as possible and dismiss them according to evidence, and having done so I strongly believe that biological explanations for gendered behaviour are not sufficient. Can you tell me which biological distinction/s between men and women would lead women to be unattracted to STEM fields and why, and why sexual dimorphic explanations are better than explanations focused on societal structure?
Is it normal i think it would be a disaster if women ruled the world?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The prevailing macho culture of the people within STEM fields discourages many women from the start. Since you're not a person in a STEM field, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I took an animal care course which is female dominated. There is a "fem culture" within that field discouraging men from the start. Since you're not a person in that field, I don't expect you to know that.
How are women being discouraged from society in those fields? Why is a "macho" culture existing if it is true? Did you consider the reason why it's like that is because an overwhelming majority of people working to gain entry in those fields and so gain position in those fields are male? The same could be said about nurses, could it not, simply in the reverse of a "macho culture"?
Explain your point. You and I both know I don't work with statements alone.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You've still not explained how they do so, which is what I was primarily getting at.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, I have. I can massively simplify if you need me to:
Premise 1: STEM has a macho culture.
Premise 2: Most women are not attracted to macho cultures any more than most men are attracted to feminized cultures.
( If this is not common sense to you, evidence for those premises be found in this Wikipedia entry and in the references at the bottom of the page and all over the rest of the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields#Explanations_for_low_representation_of_women )
Logical conclusion: Few women are attracted to STEM fields.
That is an explanation.
That Wikipedia link also lists lots of other explanations. Note how none of those are "women just aren't interested in STEM, okay?".
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, and I already addressed that by saying maybe the reason why it has a "macho culture", if there is one (I was wanting an explanation as to how it is a macho culture), that maybe that culture was established due to the field being male dominated, not that it has a macho culture which attracts men to those fields making it male dominated field. So even if this "macho culture" did exist and was taken away, where does it show women would still be interested in those fields in the first place and it doesn't remain a male dominated field that then later created a "macho-culture" due to that?
You seem to have the impression that if a field is not equal, then there must be some sort of societal problem with it rather than sexual dimorphism, in which one can say "Well, there isn't an equal representation in prison, ergo there is a socital issue of which makes men the majority in prison.
As for the Wiki link, I don't read Wiki, as I am sure you may know why someone wouldn't, so link the specific references in a response if you are willing. Not clawing through it all to find a few bits that are relevant to the discussion.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I see, you're looking for examples of macho culture in STEM. Most of the social activities surrounding STEM communities cater to masculine interests since men are the majority. Most STEM instructors are men, and provide a masculine culture by treating male students as significantly more naturally competent than female students. This is shown in recent, Western research ("Rethinking Single Sex Teaching" by Ivinson and Murphy, 2007).
I don't assume anything - I look at explanations as rationally as possible and dismiss them according to evidence, and having done so I strongly believe that biological explanations for gendered behaviour are not sufficient. Can you tell me which biological distinction/s between men and women would lead women to be unattracted to STEM fields and why, and why sexual dimorphic explanations are better than explanations focused on societal structure?