Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[Cerebus]

Almost ALWAYS the reason there aren't women in a STEM field is because the population of women interested in the fields is significantly smaller than that of men.

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Working from the assumption that more women in STEM subjects is a good thing. Until we have some solid facts on why there are so few, it is foolish to propose remedies. It's a bit like a doctor trying to cure a patient before they have arrived at a proper diagnosis. Not only might it not improve things, it might kill the patient.

It's similar, maybe in fact worse with more traditionally female dominated careers like child/elder care or design, liberal arts, etc, where men can be considered as inferior to women because they lake innate motherly, or creative, maybe even to be considered "girly" qualities.

Speak for yourself sweetie. [Fx: Minces off into the distance] 

[doobedoobedo]

We don't know but currently the research points to levels of testosterone exposure in the womb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811504/

[amyk]

As a student now, I can see this attitude coming in effect to be honest. People are being more lenient on non-white people and the university had a discussion about whether or not it was fair to grade foreign students as strongly as domestic students. This kind of attitude comes about because they want more "diversity"  in the program.

It is becoming too much about equal outcome and not equal opportunity. It's actually sickening.

I recall reading an article a while ago about some prestigious US institution having different SAT score requirements for admission; even with much higher requirements for Asians and lower ones for Africans and other non-whites (whites were a middle-ground), the Asians were still coming through in droves, and the Africans could barely make a presence...

The good thing about science is the laws of physics absolutely do not discriminate. And it shows that, no, not everyone is actually equal.

[Cerebus]

We don't know but currently the research points to levels of testosterone exposure in the womb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811504/

I don't think that single study has much weight, particularly if you look at the sample it uses:

Occupational interests were assessed in 125 individuals: 46 females with CAH, 21 unaffected sisters, 27 males with CAH, and 31 unaffected brothers. Participants aged from 9 to 26 years (M = 16.0, SD = 4.5); groups did not differ in age, F(3, 121) = .65, p > .05. Because not all participants with CAH had a same-sex sibling, siblings of males and females with CAH were combined to form control groups. Participants represented a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and most were Caucasian.

A study using an indirect measure ("psychological orientation to Things versus People") of 125 individuals, 73 with a life-altering disease which does much more than just alter the level of in-utero exposure to androgens does not make a good basis for coming to conclusions about the population level effects of in-utero exposure to androgens to proportions of males versus females in STEM subjects.

[coppice]

I recall reading an article a while ago about some prestigious US institution having different SAT score requirements for admission; even with much higher requirements for Asians and lower ones for Africans and other non-whites (whites were a middle-ground), the Asians were still coming through in droves, and the Africans could barely make a presence...

"Could barely make a presence" assumes they are motived to try. You can't make sense of these entrance requirements in isolation from people's motivations, which may vary enormously between groups. When I studied electronic engineering the 70s in the UK the commonest reaction I had from people around me was "Why are you studying engineering? You got such good grades in school." . You know, attitudes like that can put a lot of people off applying. 

[Cerebus]

I recall reading an article a while ago about some prestigious US institution having different SAT score requirements for admission; even with much higher requirements for Asians and lower ones for Africans and other non-whites (whites were a middle-ground), the Asians were still coming through in droves, and the Africans could barely make a presence...

The good thing about science is the laws of physics absolutely do not discriminate. And it shows that, no, not everyone is actually equal.

I suspect that it actually shows more about the countries that they come from than about innate ability. Korea has many places where you can cram to pass university entrance exams, Africa has many places where you have to walk 10 or 15 miles to attend a basic junior school. A mediocre Asian student is probably better equipped to game the entrance system than a brilliant African one. This isn't the laws of physics, it's a man made system for selecting students with all the biases and assumptions that implies.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I'll refrain from posting a Jordan Peterson video explaining this stuff, as it might trigger some people 

Please do, before somebody posts one of Justin Trudeau.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Dave needs to invent a way to unsubscribe from threads (on the unread replies page) without deleting all posts in it.

Yep!

[Beamin]

It is all too much...  You need to watch some old episodes of Fred Dibnah.  Back when a man was a man, a lad were a lad and a woman's place was in the home rearing the children and making a big plate of steak and chips for her man's dinner.  When he turns up after a few pints down the pub. :-)

https://youtu.be/YnH7cw0ql1I?t=9m21s

Whats ironic is I HAD white make privilege and I'm giving it up to become a house wife with a dominant husband. My dream is to be a 1950's house ife where I do all the cooking and cleaning to make sure my man is taken care of after he gets home fro work. What is wrong with that? These feminists forget some people like the traditional roles. I still have white privilege but that is not changeable. I was sick of always being the leader and having to make al of the decisions.

Also who goes to the hair dresser sits in the chair and says "can you take a little off the sides and make me look like a total bitch so men won't find me attractive then I can call them sexist?"

These people need to see what real problems are like. I'm sure there are plenty of women in Africa that are struggling with "rigorous engineering stigmas and procedures. That and AIDS from rape.

[Howardlong]

I'll refrain from posting a Jordan Peterson video explaining this stuff, as it might trigger some people 

Please do, before somebody posts one of Justin Trudeau.

Like Riley, I just can’t figure out if he’s being serious or not regarding stuff like “Peoplekind”. Some time later, he claimed that one was a crap joke, somehow I’m not so sure bearing in mind his recent track record. For someone from the outside of Canadian politics, I had high hopes for Trudeau, he may have had the charisma to become PM, but in practice he sure lacks the Midas touch, and I fear there’s more to come. It’s almost a replay of his old man in terms of everyone remembering him for the wrong reasons.

[Cerebus]

Dave needs to invent a way to unsubscribe from threads (on the unread replies page) without deleting all posts in it.

Go to "Show new replies to your posts". At the very right hand end of each topic you'll see a check box. Tick the check boxes for the topics you want to ignore, click the "ignore topics" button. Done.

[Lightages]

I couldn't take the time to read all of this thread, but WTF?

Put up your hand if you want a heart surgeon working on your triple bypass who went to a university where they weren't rigorous with testing his abilities?

Put up your hand if you are happier getting on a plane where the pilot went to "we are not rigorous half assed pilot workshop" or where the pilot went to the most rigorous training and was tested rigorously on his capability to fly your plane?

The objection to "rigor" as a white male concept that is against women, is completely moronic and WTF?

Women should have the same opportunities as men. What they do with that opportunity is their problem, not the word "rigor".

[Circlotron]

The good thing about science is the laws of physics absolutely do not discriminate. And it shows that, no, not everyone is actually equal.

Oh, but they do!
They discriminate against people who do not have the skills and interest and aptitude to solve hard engineering problems for example. Engineering problems that were devised by straight white males to make life hard for snowflakes that think engineering is as simple as dragging and dropping from a glossy manufacturer’s datasheet to an on screen simulation and hey presto, your next Nobel prize.

Engineering is about facts and numbers applied to make stuff that works. That kind of thinking doesn’t appeal to everyone. The fact that it doesn’t appeal doesn’t make it wrong, just that different people have different likes and dislikes. The trouble starts when someone in a position of authority thinks that their opinion matters above everyone else’s. Which is probably how they got to that position in the first place.

[Towger]

time to let rigor mortis to set into this thread. 

[Mr. Scram]

Go to "Show new replies to your posts". At the very right hand end of each topic you'll see a check box. Tick the check boxes for the topics you want to ignore, click the "ignore topics" button. Done.

There are no checkboxes there. A lot of people don't have those, but there's a way to get them:

The syntax to enable this is:

Profile>Modify Profile>Look and Layout>Show quick-moderation as: Checkboxes

Then UPDATE PROFILE

You will then have a Ignore Topic checkbox in your "Show new replies tor your posts" page.


Rather than "Ignore" if you don't have the time use the "Mark replies as read" and save Dave's server load.

Nearly drove Dave crazy getting this right for us.
Good mod Dave. 

[doobedoobedo]

We don't know but currently the research points to levels of testosterone exposure in the womb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811504/

I don't think that single study has much weight, particularly if you look at the sample it uses:

Occupational interests were assessed in 125 individuals: 46 females with CAH, 21 unaffected sisters, 27 males with CAH, and 31 unaffected brothers. Participants aged from 9 to 26 years (M = 16.0, SD = 4.5); groups did not differ in age, F(3, 121) = .65, p > .05. Because not all participants with CAH had a same-sex sibling, siblings of males and females with CAH were combined to form control groups. Participants represented a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and most were Caucasian.

A study using an indirect measure ("psychological orientation to Things versus People") of 125 individuals, 73 with a life-altering disease which does much more than just alter the level of in-utero exposure to androgens does not make a good basis for coming to conclusions about the population level effects of in-utero exposure to androgens to proportions of males versus females in STEM subjects.

You're right that's just one study, there are plenty of others. It was just the first one I came across in a quick google search.

[EEVblog]

As a student now, I can see this attitude coming in effect to be honest. People are being more lenient on non-white people and the university had a discussion about whether or not it was fair to grade foreign students as strongly as domestic students. This kind of attitude comes about because they want more "diversity"  in the program.

That's a long standing decades old issue. But it used to always be because foreign students were "full fee paying" students, nothing at all to do with diversity. At least in Australia anyway.

[EEVblog]

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

[EEVblog]

Dave needs to invent a way to unsubscribe from threads (on the unread replies page) without deleting all posts in it.

There is an Ignore Threads feature.

[coppice]

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

There has been research that has drawn grandiose conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I haven't seen much that looks like solid unbiased research. Too many of these studies look like a conclusion was reached prior to their commencement. In adults there do appear to be certain biases differentiating males and females, but how much of that is nature and how much our current brand of nurture is still highly questionable.

[EEVblog]

Women should have the same opportunities as men.

They do, at least in any western country we are basically talking about.
You could even argue that they maybe have more opportunity with various female only educational and encouragement programs, newfangled gender quota's in companies, and female only starup programs like:
https://www.shestarts.com/

[Lightages]

Put up your hand if you want a heart surgeon working on your triple bypass who went to a university where they weren't rigorous with testing his abilities?

That's the real trick here. Mr. Vainaloid here gets you thinking that's what his opponent is saying, thereby constructing an extremely attractive strawman. Don't fall for it.

You can assume I have no brain and a senseless droid being programmed by a video, or maybe not. How about giving me the credit of being able to think for myself and stop telling me what I think and should think. The woman actually stated in her own words that "rigor" is a white male sexist word. She is wrong and so are you.

[Ampera]

Women should have the same opportunities as men.

They do, at least in any western country we are basically talking about.
You could even argue that they maybe have more opportunity with various female only educational and encouragement programs, newfangled gender quota's in companies, and female only starup programs like:
https://www.shestarts.com/

Can't forget the classic outrage over the male scholarships given to people entering veterinary medicine: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

Women and men have almost the same rights and opportunities in most modern nations with a high HDI. The weighted wage gap is within 93 cents on the dollar, with that still being an overreaching statistic the by no means applies to anyone. It's also illegal to pay women different for the same skillset on the same job in the US.

Another thing people need to know is me and everybody else who brings up these statistics and facts, and they are, for the most part, objective facts, do so because we don't want people coming in, saying that the situation of egalitarianism in the US is so much worse than it is to get action done to fix a problem that doesn't exist by damaging innocent people that didn't do anything.

Bonus points if you get the joke of this reply, however. 

[Cerebus]

Go to "Show new replies to your posts". At the very right hand end of each topic you'll see a check box. Tick the check boxes for the topics you want to ignore, click the "ignore topics" button. Done.

There are no checkboxes there. A lot of people don't have those, but there's a way to get them:

The syntax to enable this is:

Profile>Modify Profile>Look and Layout>Show quick-moderation as: Checkboxes

Then UPDATE PROFILE

You will then have a Ignore Topic checkbox in your "Show new replies tor your posts" page.


Rather than "Ignore" if you don't have the time use the "Mark replies as read" and save Dave's server load.

Nearly drove Dave crazy getting this right for us.
Good mod Dave. 

Well caught, I'd forgotten the first, and necessary, step.

[Cerebus]

I think the problem here is that, truthfully, we do not actually know what dissuades women from STEM subjects. We make many a priori assumptions, usually from our own innate biases - so us hairy blokes say it's because women aren't apparently interested and the hairy feministas say it's because us blokes are so horrible. Truthfully we just don't know, we just have opinions.

Err, no. There has been much research in this area and the results are quite conclusive. Males are more interested in "things" than females, it's an evolutionary trait and is also found in other animal species. It's actually a really fascinating subject if you want to go down that path of investigation.

As the wikipedians say "[citation required]". I've never seen anything "quite conclusive" that can extract the signal from the noise. There's sex, genes, upbringing and socialisation all working to confound things. Add confirmation bias to that, in both researchers and readers of that research and I think we're quite a long way from "quite conclusive".

That a bunch of monkeys will segregate on sex lines in playing with human children's toys in the same way that humans do (I'm serious, they've really done this research and drawn conclusions from it, which is what I suspect Dave is alluding to in "in other animal species") is not particularly persuasive that there's a deep rooted biological bias in operation here - at best it's suggestive and that suggestion is that more research is required before forming any conclusions.

It's one thing to say, possibly even prove, broadly, that males are more interested in "things" than females, it's another to conclude that is the reason, and the sole reason that there are so few women in STEM subjects.