Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

91. Re: It Came from E3 2013, Part Six Jun 17, 2013, 17:27 Eirikrautha
NKD wrote on Jun 17, 2013, 13:25:
Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 17, 2013, 13:05:
What matters is whether or not our inherent differences might explain the observed results of whatever we are investigating. Despite the decades of promoting STEM careers for women, they still choose those careers way less often than men. Even the "successes" (like the growing number of female engineers) show these differences (when you note that the growth has overwhelmingly been in disciplines like civil engineering... and chemical and mechanical engineering still lags tremendously). Perhaps this may be biological (as men tend to have better 3D visualization skills, but women tend to be better integrators)? Rule that out before you start preaching against the "old boys' club"...

This sounds like the "Blacks are better at some sports, and white people others" argument when the only difference is that blacks play sports that you can get into while being poor, while white people tend to be in rich people sports. There's almost no real science that backs up what you're saying. On the other hand, there's ample science to show that it's almost always social norms, familial pressure and the like that drive people into careers, not natural genetic affinity.

What little actual science sits behind your argument might explain minor differences, but not wholesale inability to perform a task adequately. Every industry where women get a foothold, they tend to do just as well as their male counterparts, if provided equal training and possessing equal dedication.

Your argument is the typical red herring used in just about every discussion on sexism. The number of jobs where males or females can be demonstrated to be better are pretty much limited to physical ones like athletics where differences in muscle mass and bone structure can explain the advantage using simple physics.

Hardly. Brain structures and sex differences are not only well established, but also quite well understood. I'm married to a chemist, and she'll even tell you the struggles she and some of her female compatriots had in college with things like bond angles and compound geometries (and even some of the concepts she and her peers grasped much easier than the male students). Far fewer girls have the natural inclination to tear apart things to see how they work when they are 6, 8 or 10 years old... and that's not due to social pressure. They are just interested in different stuff.

None of this is to say that there aren't some girls who will be natural STEM masters... obviously there are... and they deserve the same chance and treatment as anyone else. But expecting the numbers to be equal is just a fantasy. No matter how much you wish it were so (or how "wrong" the reality is), the reality is inescapable. Men and women are different... and this affects their behaviors and interests.
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo