| Start here [1]. This is delving dangerously close to flame war territory, so I probably won't respond further. But I'd like to point out that because of attitudes like this >If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM) You're probably unlikely to find too much on the subject - it's dangerous to academic careers to even propose research which could potentially justify any aspects of classical sexism. I'd just like to point out three things: 1. You're aware of the massive differences in physical capabilities, on average, between men and women, right? Which make men and women better suited, on average, to certain tasks? Why would sexually dimorphic specialization stop above the shoulders? 2. This isn't about inferiority, it's about specialization over thousands of generations. We see it in practically every other sexually reproducing species. The fact that humans have some ability to override instinct doesn't preclude gendered differences in average behavior. 3. This doesn't say anything about individual ability. We are talking about distribution statistics. What that means is that differences in average performance lead to different proportional representations in various fields. That doesn't justify discrimination or mistreatment, but it does suggest that, say, forcing gender parity in industry is unrealistic and potentially harmful. 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/m... |
I see nothing there but speculation about evolutionary history. It would be a shame if the potential STEM contributions of half of the human race were left fallow because of a half-assed evolutionary just-so story.