[Planktonne]

The linked article says the exact opposite of what you are claiming:

> The issue doesn’t appear to be girls’ aptitude for STEM professions. In looking at test scores across 67 countries and regions, Stoet and Geary found that girls performed about as well or better than boys did on science in most countries, and in almost all countries, girls would have been capable of college-level science and math classes if they had enrolled in them.

[missosoup]

'Predisposed to do job' doesn't mean 'better at doing job'. It means 'more likely to do job'. Which is what the linked article studies - the fact that as women get more choices, they choose STEM less and less.

Boys are unquestionably more likely to take an interest in tech than girls, and no amount of 'equality' or active enticement aimed at girls has been able to shift that balance. The only thing left is to set diversity targets and discriminate the way that is described in TFA. And it's condescending and harmful as hell towards women who are actually good at what they do in these fields.

Convincing society that every workplace should have a 50/50 gender split is one of the most nefarious things large corporates have done. They've doubled the size of the workforce while not paying a cent more for it. Which is why it takes 2 people working full time today to have the same lifestyle as one person could have funded 50 years ago. Feminism was subverted into enabling corporate greed.

The messaging was quietly shifted from 'all women should have the ability to work if they choose to' to 'all women should work'.

[Planktonne]

You're galloping away from your own point here.

You said that the research shows that men are 'more naturally predisposed' towards the sciences. It doesn't show that.

The only thing in that article that addresses any kind of natural predisposition is the information on aptitude, and that doesn't show that men are more likely to do the job.

Everything else is firstly highly speculative, and secondly affected by a range of factors that the research doesn't explore. In fact, it actively suggests other factors - such as economic security - are likely to be involved. It would be difficult to find an article that was further from claiming a natural predisposition.

The research doesn't show any kind of predisposition, let alone a natural one. It notes a pattern - that may be reversing itself - that requires an awful lot more further research before using it to justify lazy stereotypes.

[ip26]

Aptitude for a thing is your raw capability to do a thing well.

Predisposition to do a thing is your inclination or desire to do a thing at all.

Basically the linked article finds that women are perfectly capable of doing the job, but the more choice they have, the less they want to do it.

[Planktonne]

'Predisposition' is not solely focused on your inclinations. It's absolutely absurd to say, for example, that a genetic predisposition towards cancer is desired by anyone.

What we *know* is that there is no aptitude problem preventing women from doing the job. We also know that many capable women choose not to, particularly in more equal societies.

Jumping from the above information to 'men are naturally more predisposed towards the sciences' is a massive and unsupportable reach, dependent on deliberately ignoring a host of factors and redefining words.

[missosoup]

Predisposition is unambiguous and well-defined. It means that a particular outcome is more likely. It says nothing about the cause or desire for it. You substituted the real meaning for your own agenda.

[Planktonne]

> Predisposition is unambiguous and well-defined

I agree; it isn't just about what you want.