[codemac]

The goals of this post are noble, and I almost agree with the conclusion. How the post gets there seems to be based out of a very negative conflation.

How is the lack of women in the tech industry, and the offensive notion that women fair poorly in STEM subjects for no other reason than they're women uttered in the same breath? They shouldn't be for the very same reasons as this post extolls.

> Being told that female students fair poorly in STEM subjects, or that the tech industry is lacking in female programmers, for instance, can reinforce those beliefs within women’s minds, leading them to confirm those stereotypes themselves.

Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period.

However, the lack of women in tech is not a stereotype or a belief. It's a fact. I'm not reinforcing a stereotype by mentioning it, I'm pointing out something that needs to be called out at every step, to root out anyone continuing the above mentioned offensive discrimination against women.

Gender-based discrimination being called out and gender based discrimination being committed must be considered different things.

[enraged_camel]

>>Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period.

I don't think the point is that they inherently do worse, but rather that, currently and on average, they do worse.

[wfunction]

Exactly. I don't get why whenever someone talks about correlation, people suddenly assume he is claiming causation and start beating him to death.

Correlation is correlation: whether or not there is a causal relationship doesn't change the correlation.

[scoofy]

>Anyone who believes that women inherently do worse in STEM subjects needs to be called out, in the most negative of terms. No one should say it, period.

Outside of a university context, I would agree with you. Statements like this are the reason tenure is still needed in a university setting. No axiom should be sacred if we genuinely care about understanding the world and making the world a better place for everyone.

[yummyfajitas]

Outside of a university context, I would agree with you.

So non-academics don't have the right to an inquiring mind?

Also, what other lines of inquiry should be forbidden?

[toasterlovin]

Also, who watches the watchmen?

[scoofy]

Non-academics have a fairly well documented penchant for discrimination and ethnic violence.

[toasterlovin]

Is ignoring or hiding the truth (whatever the truth may be) ever a legitimate solution? Seems like treating the symptom instead of the cause,

[Kudzu_Bob]

That depends on the problem that is being solved. For instance, if your goal is to explain away what is obviously the case, then ignoring or hiding the truth is the ONLY solution. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"