[mistermann]

> seeing strong female role models will change the lower levels and society's conceptions

Will it? How do you know?

> it seems the only way to change those conceptions is to have them there in the first place

Is it? Again, how do you know?

EDIT: Interesting, usually requesting proof for unsubstantiated claims is encouraged rather than downvoted on HN, I wonder if there's something special about this topic that makes people's mind's work differently.

[adjkant]

I don't have time to dig up research on the first, but the effects of representation have been studied at least a sufficient amount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Representation

The above would be a good starting point.

On the second, I would retract the only for a "one of the few we know of". Early education work again is key, but there are still cultural struggles.

[mistermann]

In other words, there is a theory that seeing strong female role models will change the lower levels and society's conceptions.

It's a perfectly plausible theory, but of course it suffers from the same sexual discrimination "injustice" that causes all the arguments whenever this topic comes up.

Considering the human factor involved in this problem though, using temporary injustice to get through a logjam in an effort to see if that can "prime the pump" and get to a self-sustaining meritocracy seems worth a try, I'd personally prefer we don't pretend it's something other than what it is though (but again, considering this is a human problem, lying to ourselves may be a necessary part of the solution).

[adjkant]

A few responses:

Your initial comment is being downvoted because the research has been done, and it is a strongly supportive theory. It's viewed as lazily ignorant. To imply that it's the topic is missing the point.

If you already knew about this, you should be bringing something to the table in terms of an argument against it from the beginning.

> It's a perfectly plausible theory, but of course it suffers from the same sexual discrimination "injustice" that causes all the arguments whenever this topic comes up.

I don't see this as true at all. You're going to have to provide some good arguments for that.

It's not just "a theory". So is "gravity". That's just a bad argument. Degrees of proof is what should be discussed, and I have yet to see you bring up anything that would cause doubt. I am making a claim based on studies and evidence that have been vetted by a scientific community. Is it as strong as our evidence for gravity? Of course not. Is it plenty sufficient for using to inform actions? I think so.

> I'd personally prefer we don't pretend it's something other than what it is though.

I don't see where I made claim it was anything but this. As a society, I doubt we have this level of nuance in common conception, but I don't think we can expect that either, no matter what argument. We just don't have well-nuanced arguments for most things on average. Heck, most people still use evolution to argue for things it does not actually support, but I guess it's survival of the fittest (if that actually was an argument that held up in this context!).

[archagon]

Why not try it? Isn't SV all about "experimentation" and "innovation", after all?