[bubblewrap]

Sure, yes, I feel threatened - because it is visible in many educational institutions that the only focus is on somehow getting girls into STEM. The boys are on their own, it is assumed that they will be interested in STEM anyway. Which isn't even the case. More boys than girls go into STEM, but many boys don't go into STEM or much of anything, really (less men than women complete higher education these days).

I have a son and a daughter, and I don't like that approach for either of them. I think if boys or girls are having fun, that should be encouraged and used as a motivator. If "killing machines" is what motivates the boys to program robots, so be it. Although I don't think this toy robot can actually kill anything, so that is just hyperbole.

And presumably it goes further - will I be blamed if I give my son a water pistol, because I encourage his toxic masculinity? Where does it stop?

[Mauronic1]

I get it that boys are biologically different. I was at a party recently and two 14 year old boys wrestle for an hour on and off in dress clothes. My daughter rolled her eyes and texted her girlfriends.

The problem that I observed is that my daughter's co-ed elementary STEM program attracted a lot of hyperactive boys. On top of that, the curriculum flipped some primal switches. What I called the "boy energy" spilled over to my daughter's experience and made it crappy for her.

She has been in a same sex educational setting for the past several years and it has been great. FWIW, she loves Chem, Bio and Theater.

p.s. I am enjoying this conversation even though I must be getting downvoted a lot since my karma is negative. LOL

[bubblewrap]

I have a general issue with school forcing kids into sub-optimal learning environments. It's not OK if a few ill-mannered kids make it difficult for everybody else.

I don't think it is an inevitable outcome of having boys in the class, in fact, many boys also suffer from the behavior of such classmates.

However, if single-sex education helps, why not.

What irks me is when there are STEM courses just for girls, without similar offers for boys. In my country, significant amounts of government money are available for that kind of thing. Firms and organizations also do it, presumably for marketing purposes (displaying how progressive they are by encouraging women in tech).

An example that comes to mind is Google sponsoring women traveling to their Google I/O event. It's nice to encourage women in tech. But if there is a woman reluctant to go, being convinced by being offered money, and a man who would love to go but can't afford it, I feel something is amiss. Although I give the companies that they have their own incentives, namely getting their hands on cheaper software developers. The market for male developers might be tapped out, so it is understandable if they set their eyes on women.

[dgzl]

It doesn't. This is all because there's a lack of women in STEM, and people trying to find out why.

If we can conclude that it's society's fault (nature/nurture) women don't like STEM, then we can change society until women are interested.

If the reality is that women are uninterested in STEM from a biological standpoint, then it's harder to manipulate to get women interested.

The people who are most concerned with this problem are really fighting the idea that any of this is biologically responsible.

[bubblewrap]

First of all women are doing lots of STEM - they are the majority of medicine students, for example. It seems to be mostly engineering they shun.

In my opinion, the main reason for that is that they have lots of other interests, too, and they have more options than men (being less dependent on a good income). For that reasons alone it is to be expected that less women choose engineering. Biological aspects might play a part, too, of course (apart from having a womb, I mean).

[dgzl]

> In my opinion, the main reason for that is that they have lots of other interests, too, and they have more options than men (being less dependent on a good income).

Can you explain these three points? I really don't know what you mean by them. I assume men would have the same amount of interests and "options", and don't know why being dependant on good income has anything to do with it.

[bubblewrap]

Dependence on good income: if you are not dependent on a good income, you have more jobs to choose from.

For example you can study literature, or work with children. Another option only women have is becoming a mother, staying at home or working only part time. Some men do that, too, but as a man you can not really count on making that your career. Mothers have the first choice of staying home or not (because they have the wombs).

Other things, like being more sociable, might be affected by biology. I am not sure. Maybe being more popular as a kid makes people more inclined to take up a people facing job.

I love maths, and even I find it difficult to stay focused on it if I am not forced to do so. Maybe it is different for other people, but I could imagine that is also a factor that makes women drop out. Not because they don't like STEM, but because they don't have the pressure to stay in it.

Another way to think about it: what do women do who don't go into STEM? We are trained now to think that they fail in life, but the reality is that they usually go on to do other interesting things.

I have had female colleagues in IT who told me they would try this now, and they could always drop out and have kids if they don't like it. Only one of them stayed in tech, and she became a teacher. That was in a job where they ended up putting the IT staff into the basement, while marketing and HR resided on the first floor with big windows. Not the only time I witnessed that attitude towards tech workers.