|
|
|
|
|
by lutorm
3165 days ago
|
|
I made the argument that women are less INTERESTED But interest is an outcome, influenced for example by the presence or absence of role models or the impression of certain fields as not welcoming to women. If I remember the state of things correctly, the gender imbalance of interest in science is not present at early ages but develops around junior high ages when kids start picking up on which jobs or fields are "appropriate" for males vs females. I don't think anyone is saying the gender imbalance is purely a result of hiring discrimination (although it likely plays a role), but there are clearly other biases in force that directly arise from the gender imbalance. How do you propose getting rid of those biases except by trying to "prime the pump"? |
|
Sure it can play a part in the outcome, but that in no way limits anyone from still pursuing the field, and hence there is still equality of opportunity. The latter is what (hopefully) any rational human being wants.
I'm not against more outreach efforts or helping encourage more girls to pursue STEM. I personally volunteer at a science museum and have in the past been a TA for high school STEM MOOCs.
What I am against is accusing the existing system for discriminating against females (unless you provide direct evidence that gender is the sole cause of the outcome inequality, which I will be happy to agree if the evidence is convincing) and then continuously lowering the bar for entry for females (thus achieving diversity but undermining meritocracy) - which is what I see happening right now.