[706f6f70]

> Until we pay the most talented researchers

It's not even that. One of the contributing factors is that we are no longer hiring for talent or merit. If you're a male child interested in science and in high school right now you've been through 8 years telling you that you should not go into science because they need more women of colour who follow the right religions and have the right sexual orientation. You're constantly bombarded with "SCIENCE DOES NOT WANT MEN".

And sure, we can say "well if he had the necessary grit, this would not discourage him". No. No amount of grit will get you in when governments are shaping science funding to punish having male staff. No amount of grit will get you in when indoctrination training is mandatory for the selection committees. No amount of grit will get you in when the first filter in a hiring process is to remove all males applicants.

I'm sorry but science has to go through a decline in the West for a bit. We still have some remnants to be worked through the system, but the next couple generations of Western scientists are going to be generally pretty low quality. On the bright side, science is not exclusively a Western tradition at this point. Other cultures that at least pretend to still focus on merit and talent will carry the scientific tradition forward.

[troutwine]

> If you're a male child interested in science and in high school right now you've been through 8 years telling you that you should not go into science because they need more women of colour who follow the right religions and have the right sexual orientation. You're constantly bombarded with "SCIENCE DOES NOT WANT MEN".

This is profoundly contrary to my experience mentoring young students, the approach of my teacher friends and acquaintances, the experiences of family members. When this topic does come up -- and it does -- it's done specifically with the notion of normalizing the idea that people of all backgrounds can, should and will be scientists and mathematicians. It's entirely unproductive to the project of establishing a more welcoming future by, as you say, declaring "SCIENCE DOES NOT WANT MEN". The loss of an exclusive status does not necessarily imply a discriminatory regime, though you've clearly framed things that way for yourself. Governments aren't "shaping science funding to punish having male staff" they're preferentially awarding funding to labs that are not exclusively or predominately male. I know enough excellent scientists who've been chased out of labs on account of sexual harassment to know that there's _plenty_ of reasons for a lab to be exclusively male besides "merit and talent". In fact, I argue that if you allow systematic inequalities to shape a field you're specifically undercutting people who might otherwise have succeed because of their talents and drive.

> I'm sorry but science has to go through a decline in the West for a bit.

The real issue, as others have pointed out in this thread, is the need for scientists to chase funding at all times, whether by seeking out grants or side-gigs in graduate school to supplement a meager stipend. The issue is emphatically not that your favored subset of humanity isn't esteemed like you think proper.

Fix your heart.

[dnbgfher]

> When this topic does come up -- and it does -- it's done specifically with the notion of normalizing the idea that people of all backgrounds can, should and will be scientists and mathematicians.

This line of thought always confuses me a bit. Unfortunately the image of those that question such things is so poor it's rather discouraging to even bring up. I should really try to stress that I'm not trying to say how things should be. I think these issues are more complex than most anybody gives them credit for, and everybody has their own desired outcomes, timelines, and acceptable consequences. All I'm trying to do is explain perceptions, really.

The main line of thought that tends to result in all the focus on women in science and programs to help women succeed in science seems to include the idea that the societal conception that scientists are male pushes females away from science. There are of course other issues like you brought up that impact retention of female scientists, but much of the science-specific efforts aren't focused on retention but rather initial interest. That's fine, and a decent enough issue to go after.

However, what many people seem to have trouble seeing is how these programs can reasonably provoke reactions like the one you responded to using the very same logic that promoted the creation of those programs in the first place. If you can see how media depictions and general expectations so severely shunt women away from science, is it really so hard to understand how the focus and programs promoting women in science may be having a negative impact on men wishing to go into science? The pressures aren't exactly the same, what with one being sort of a general thing while the other is more purposeful and focused. Who knows how they balance relative to each other, and people won't even agree on where that balance should be. However, I do understand how people can take the more purposeful one more personally. You have specifically putting out these influences that you can latch onto, while you can't really do that with a vague general feeling.

So, hell if I know how to even determine who is right here, though I suspect nobody is or ever will be. But I'd really like to see more thought put into how things effect everybody and some more understanding that people may have justifiable negative responses to things you personally consider to be positive. And neither of you has to be wrong. Or fix themselves.

[troutwine]

> If you can see how media depictions and general expectations so severely shunt women away from science, is it really so hard to understand how the focus and programs promoting women in science may be having a negative impact on men wishing to go into science?

Hi, yes it is hard to understand. If you are a child and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "Welp, I clearly am not welcome here." then you need mentoring help from an adult to prop up your self-esteem. If you are an adult and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "OOOOH I AM NOW OPPRESSED" then you are either pitiable for how far off the rails you've gone or are now pushing a motive distinct from leading your people out of the inhospitable land where talent and ambition are primary.

> So, hell if I know how to even determine who is right here, though I suspect nobody is or ever will be

Nobody is... nobody is or ever will be right? Listen, here's my motivating principles. I believe in the equality of opportunity. I believe we live and die and have a responsibility to leave the world more just and free than we found it. I believe we're working off partial information and even with the best information any attempt to leave the world more just and free will, inevitably, do a little bit of the opposite. That's why we should leave wiggle room for future generations. Now, access to opportunity in this particular discussion is limited owing to a systematic preference for a subset of humanity, shutting or pushing out the otherwise talented and ambitious from science and mathematics. It is entirely possible, though I argue not probable, that by pushing for a world in which all people from all backgrounds can do science if they have a talent for it is going to somehow have dystopic results. I know for a fact that our current approach of letting in-group dynamics and selective representation act as a filter of otherwise talented and ambitious people is actively dystopic. So, move along the gradient. Move from "absolutely very bad" to "very, very unlikely to be just as bad but also in a different way".

In passing, I will also note that your comment and grandparent weight a hypothetical bad equally with a demonstrable bad. I reject this weighting.

> And neither of you has to be wrong.

Seems like pretty dichotomous positions to me.

> Or fix themselves.

The grandparent should absolutely fix their heart.

[username90]

> Hi, yes it is hard to understand. If you are a child and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "Welp, I clearly am not welcome here." then you need mentoring help from an adult to prop up your self-esteem.

You are grossly misrepresenting the problem here. I grew up in the 90's in a more progressive country than the US and there were plenty of science events that I thought would be cool to attend which were girls only (almost all of them actually, not many events for kids here). My spot on a science competition team was given to a girl since the competition required at least one girl on each team. Also it seems like people taking stock photos loves including girls and women in them. Every time I got to the next level I was surprised over how there were so few girls there, nothing I learned stated that women were not common in STEM as I grew up.

When you go through all of that, is it really that strange you start believing that the odds are stacked against you? And is it strange that when every time you hear "equality" they go on to say "boys need to take a step back in favor of girls", that you read it as boys need not apply? So when almost every job posting is asking for "equality", what you read is "boys need not apply" because that was what it always meant before. I don't care what the exact definition of these terms means, in practice this is what boys hear when they grow up in such an environment. And when you get ghosted by such job postings explicitly encouraging equal representation, then it is very easy to assume that they ghosted you due to your gender.

Anyhow, all of this has lead to nobody taking the shortage of women in STEM seriously, I mean this has been going on for around 30 years and they still can't attract girls to these programs...

[dnbgfher]

> If you are an adult and you see an example of people of all backgrounds working together to do science, including people that look and behave like you do, and your take away from this is "OOOOH I AM NOW OPPRESSED"

That... is not at all what I said. At all. I am confused how you got that from what I said. I said that women have the problem of not seeing women in science, while men have the problem of seeing public interest and support for only women in science. Nowhere did I suggest seeing women in science would be detrimental to men. The reason I bring them up together is because one is a result of attempting to fix the other.

So, to try again. Remember I am not talking about end results, or ideals or where the world should be, or any of that. I'm talking about how things make people feel. You accept that not seeing women in science makes women feel they are unwelcome. Meanwhile we have people repeatedly stressing the importance of women in science, and seeing many groups formed explicitly to promote women in science. Men are not seeing any of this directed towards them. The parallel here is pretty trivial. Men can see this and feel unimportant and like they are not welcome.

Is that an acceptable or even necessary consequence to achieve a more egalitarian society? Maybe? I don't know. But either way it's rather callous to brush off these feelings as merely a result of people being "broken" and "wrong."

> Nobody is... nobody is or ever will be right?

Basically? I don't even know how to define "right" in a meaningful way here without the ability to run world simulations or predict the future. Your motivating principles are all great and I agree with them. The differences emerge in the details of how to act on them. For example, some people view the goal as exact equal representation in all fields, presumably with respect to population demographics though I don't hear that often said explicitly. Other people think the goal should be for each person to have equal opportunities without requiring exact proportional representation. Some people think the time limit on reaching the goal, whatever that goal is, is immediate, while others are fine seeing this take a more natural (and lengthy) course. Some people are more okay with the ends justifying the means than others.

These are all significant details that people can argue about at length while all wanting to see the exact same outcome. I want the outcome you do. That does not mean I need to agree with you about how to get there.

> In passing, I will also note that your comment and grandparent weight a hypothetical bad equally with a demonstrable bad. I reject this weighting.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion one is hypothetical while the other is demonstrable. We're seeing men react poorly to the current actions, and not always in appropriate ways. Considering I'm arguing largely about how people are justified in feeling a certain way, I'm not sure what else you need here before you consider their feelings to be sufficiently demonstrated.

> Seems like pretty dichotomous positions to me.

Hopefully by now you see how they are not. You are largely saying that certain actions are good things because they solve problem X. Grandparent is saying those actions are also causing another problem Y. Actions need not be purely positive or negative.

> The grandparent should absolutely fix their heart.

You're really getting needlessly personal and as I keep trying to show, are basically telling them their feelings are wrong because there are other problems in the world. It's really rather condescending and makes it harder to take your argument in good faith.

[shard972]

You conflate "losing your exclusive status" with the push to equalize representation in workplaces.

There isn't an infinite amount of jobs for any particular field or workplace at any one time, if you pursue a campaign of equality of roles going to men/women in a male dominated field, your going to have to reject some men who otherwise would have qualified.

[troutwine]

> You conflate "losing your exclusive status" with the push to equalize representation in workplaces.

I am not. You have done that for me and incorrectly.

Firstly, It's absolutely appropriate to inform children that people of all backgrounds can, should and will become scientists and mathematicians and to encourage children with these interests to pursue them. Separately, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of behaviour as a society that artificially filters some subset of humanity out of a field they would otherwise be able to contribute to owning to individual talent and ambition.

> There isn't an infinite amount of jobs for any particular field or workplace at any one time, if you pursue a campaign of equality of roles going to men/women in a male dominated field, your going to have to reject some men who otherwise would have qualified.

This viciously cuts the other way too. If you leave a systematic inequality in place you prop up otherwise untalented schlubs who edged out people of merit. In my own field, software, I've seen talented software engineers leave companies that needed them because of continued, unwanted and rebuffed sexual advances by some EXTREMELY mediocre software engineers. These dullards then merrily added negative value alone in their pit of reinforced homogeneity. More effective HR would help in this particular example but, hey, so too would having a shop that wasn't almost entirely of homogeneous background in the first place.

[shard972]

So what if we do inform kids of all backgrounds they can do whatever they want and we still end up with 95% of programmers being white males? That would be ok and would require no more effort to correct in your book?

To your second point, then my recommendation to employers is that they should hire only these great women who have been sexually harassed. It seems clear whoever does this will have a large competitive advantage.

[Wowfunhappy]

> If you're a male child interested in science and in high school right now you've been through 8 years telling you that you should not go into science because they need more women of colour who follow the right religions and have the right sexual orientation. You're constantly bombarded with "SCIENCE DOES NOT WANT MEN".

Do you have any examples of teens / young adults being discouraged from going into science because they are white and male? There are certainly some (I'd say good!) programs to encourage women and minorities, but that's quite a different thing from men being actively discouraged.

Scientific fields are still significantly more male than female, even among recent graduates.

[SamReidHughes]

> Do you have any examples of teens / young adults being discouraged from going into science because they are white and male?

I know a post-doc who was told to hire at least one female undergrad, even if there's a better man.

[v_lisivka]

> Scientific fields are still significantly more male than female, even among recent graduates.

Why "still"? Majority of mans are genetically selected to be adventurers, while minority of woman are adventurers. It's impossible to change genetics with advertising, so we will never have 50/50% split, until human genome will change. Why not just accept natural distribution?

[max76]

I'm not convinced that joining the scientific community is an adventure or that this genetic difference exists. The differences can be explained without using genetics.

For example, there is a popularly held opinion that girls are bad at math. Girls who believe they are bad at math might try less in math courses. Girls that receive lower grades in math from trying less might be intimidated by the math requirements of a science program.

[dnautics]

It's not an adventure, but it is a high-risk with a slim chance of a very high payoff endeavor, and men are typically more drawn to that than women, for example there his a huge gender disparity in fishing the Alaskan fisheries or base jumping.

[v_lisivka]

Offtopic: Can you explain to non-native English speaker, please, why "adventure" does not match "a high-risk with a slim chance of a very high payoff endeavor"? I saw "adventure in science" few times, so I assumed that someone who does this "adventure in science" can be named "adventurer". What is wrong in my conclusion?

[max76]

I wouldn't consider a career in science to be high risk. It's often easy to transfer from academic science to private engineering. Science degrees holders have respectable earnings on average.

[nine_k]

The argument I like most is that young ladies are just smarter, and don't go as much to a field that promises low pay, long hours, and doubtful prospects; they choose careers more wisely.

[scarejunba]

How does that one square with the fact that the median income for women is lower than the median income for men while the median income for all groups correlates positively with intelligence?

Seems like that kills the hypothesis that women are making better career decisions across the board optimizing for pay.

[Retric]

Pay is not the only issue when choosing a job. Job Stability, stress and work life balance are also huge factors rational actors should consider.

Science does not simply pay poorly, the job also sucks.

[Konnstann]

So does nursing, but it is heavily female-dominated.

[Retric]

“Registered nurses (RNs) made a median salary of $68,450 in 2016.” That’s not really bad pay considering you can get an associate degree which only takes 2 years, and you make above median US wages.

Being a scientist requires vastly more education, and long periods of low pay. I actually know a programmer that switched to nursing and he seems reasonably content.

[dnautics]

The reason why science sucks goes beyond pay. It's the repeated failure, long-ass hours (I once worked for 150 days straight, pulling >100 hour weeks), only to find out that in the end playing politics was more important than doing a good job at the work.

[slededit]

A life tip: Always 50/50. Talent is great, politics helps you direct it to where it will maximize impact. If nobody thinks what your working on is important you may be an unrecognized genius, but its also perfectly possible you are on the wrong track.

If you can't convince anyone what your doing is important it should make you stop and reconsider your efforts.

[dnautics]

I'm in a position where I succeed by not playing politics. Since i'm not playing politics (which others in the company are doing), i am spending my time doing development work. I am now building a team, and my only concern is to deliver results on time. My CEO thinks I'm competent and has expressed interest in helping fund me a startup, when the time comes. I'm not going to say that I didn't strategize the a politics "meta game" (picking a place to work where I would be visible, choosing to work on projects where I can have an impact) but the amount of time or effort I am spending on it is vanishingly small.

In any case my point about science is that playing politics is MORE important than delivering quality results. In my lab as a grad student, there was a grad student who delivered extremely sketchy data and then won the grad student of the year award and now he's a tenured professor at a top 50 US research institute.

[mturmon]

> If you're a male child interested in science and in high school right now you've been through 8 years telling you that you should not go into science because they need more women of colour who follow the right religions...

I have an 8th grader in California public schools, and this is just not at all the case here. There is a general STEM push that is sweeping many of the kids up. There is occasional special note of girls who are good at these subjects, but it doesn't seem to be at the expense of boys.

The notion of "following the right religions" is even more out of touch with reality. At least in California. Are you seriously suggesting that, say, Muslim children are being specifically encouraged to go into science, and (say) Catholic kids are discouraged?

[nonbel]

> "There is a general STEM push that is sweeping many of the kids up."

This is awful for science though. It is much better for it to be thought of a "nerdy" thing so people who aren't really interested in it stay away.

EDIT:

I'd like to hear from a downvoter who has tried to convince someone who actually doesnt care too much about science that they should test their own hypothesis rather than a strawman hypothesis when the latter gets them more rewards. It is infuriating, and you do not want them informing doctors/etc on how to advise you:

"We are quite in danger of sending highly trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missiles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort." Fisher, R N (1958). "The Nature of Probability". Centennial Review. 2: 261–274. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf

[eli_gottlieb]

I'm in grad school at the moment, and it sounds to me like you're describing another planet from the one I live on. My entire lab has one woman in it, and nobody's come around to punish us or anything. Hell, I'm not just male, I'm white and male. I'm not even gay! My ethnicity (Jews) are over-represented in science.

What sort of data have you collected, or received in summarized form, to come to these conclusions of yours?

[khitan]

Biology as a field ranges from majority female to 1:1 parity in the modern postgraduate cohorts I have seen; the physical and logical sciences at the postgraduate maintain large male imbalances and notably seem to do so across all western countries regardless of social ideology from the figures I have seen across various sources. It is true in my observation that gender-specific encouragements are consistently emphasized at the university level even oddly in scenarios where parity has been reached or exceeded.

[Ar-Curunir]

What? Get this sexist crap out of here. Do you seriously think that any educational programs are rejecting men today? Have you walked into any STEM department anywhere across the country? You can count the number of women on your hands. There is no discrimination against men in STEM.

[ecr42]

MY university said they aimed to get 50:50 gender representation of professors within a few years from the current 80:20.

Now, you could achieve that in 2 ways - fire a bunch of old men, or hire mostly women for new jobs.

As a young man, I'd much rather see the first and I think it's fairer... however there's tenure. That means the only way for them to achieve their goal is to hold down young men, who are made to pay for the 'crimes' of the old

[kiliantics]

One must be delusional to believe something like this. I work in science and it is still extremely white and male dominated. All the students I teach are also mostly white and male and are very much enthusiastic about continuing in science. If anything, the people who are typically less enthusiastic are the non-white/non-male students. And understandably so, because - despite some minimal effort to change in recent times - the environment just isn't all that welcoming to them.

[fromMars]

I might quibble with the white part here. I see many people of Asian and Indian descent in STEM fields.

[malnourish]

I would like to see some sources for those claims.

[thwy12321]

The crazy thing is that in some companies/jobs you could be fired for posting this.

[pessimizer]

As a scientist, definitely. It would be evidence that you've lost your grip on reality and are entirely a creature of reactionary twitter rage, and trusting your judgment is probably not a great idea.

[nonbel]

>"As a scientist, definitely ... trusting your judgment is probably not a great idea."

You should never trust someones judgement when it comes to science. That is practically the idea that started it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

[Falling3]

In most (US) states, you can be fired for anything not specifically protected. What makes this case anymore interesting?