"SheStarts is powered by Australia's leaders in diversity & innovation"
Diversity for women only.
Because "equality", at least in the U.S., isn't about equal rights for all, a noble goal. It is about making everyone "equal". We are all different, and therefore, diverse. However, those differences are being singled out, one by one, as something to be eradicated and are being demonized and vilified at every turn. It is "sexist" and "bigoted" and "wrong" that more women are not interested in certain fields. It cannot be an internal desire; it MUST be an external force. So the finger pointing and demonizing and fear mongering begins.
But there IS an external force. If you actually take the time to listen, any number of women could tell you about any number of times they've been discouraged--sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly--from pursuing STEM education. Sometimes it's peers, sometimes it's teachers. I've heard it directly from a number of women I know. The same goes for people of racial minorities. It doesn't matter if certain cohorts on the whole are less interested in STEM, the fact of the matter is that there are women and minorities who ARE interested and ARE discouraged. As far as race, there are whole schools full of children who could have the interest and the drive to get into STEM and succeed, but they're never exposed to the curriculum or given the support that their peers in more affluent (which in the US, means more white) schools are.
So until there is demonstrably equal opportunity and equally available support and encouragement across the board, the whole "but maybe X people are just less interested" argument is a big fucking red herring. This is basic science: you can't isolate one variable unless you can control all of the others. You can't isolate interest without normalizing encouragement, instruction, funding, and culture.
Mansplained, by a white, male.
Please, for the love of God, tell me you're joking!
No. Wouldn't one think to ask women *why* they choose nursing over engineering and base one's conclusions at least partly upon a response from the demographic? Wouldn't *that* be smart?
Strangely enough, psychologists have indeed done surveys to determine personality traits and tendencies amongst populations.
Jordan Peterson has released quite a wealth of knowledge onto the internet for those who are curious. Of particular interest is the idea of distilling essential psychological traits from large volumes of survey data and analysing the co-variance of answers to see if they measure a singular trait. Cultural, socio-economic, sex influences etc can all be factored for. As difficult as it is to ascertain comprehensive truths in a softer science like psychology, people like Dr Peterson are making an honest effort to apply the scientific method.
Or, we could entertain the "alternative science" that he's just a big meany mansplainer.
The only thing I saw resembling statistics there was his 20:1 ratio.
Statistics reveal the what, but not necessarily the why. The why is what matters. Why are women avoiding STEM in far higher proportions that what most reasonable people would think that women could enter the field and be successful? For that, one actually needs to talk with women and listen to the answers.
I'm fairly certain that society is worse off with this extreme representational bias in STEM. You can call it "disinterest," but I'm betting you'd hear the word "discouraged" if you actually asked and listened.
Mansplained, by a white, male.
Please, for the love of God, tell me you're joking!
No. Wouldn't one think to ask women *why* they choose nursing over engineering and base one's conclusions at least partly upon a response from the demographic? Wouldn't *that* be smart?
Strangely enough, psychologists have indeed done surveys to determine personality traits and tendencies amongst populations.
Jordan Peterson has released quite a wealth of knowledge onto the internet for those who are curious. Of particular interest is the idea of distilling essential psychological traits from large volumes of survey data and analysing the co-variance of answers to see if they measure a singular trait. Cultural, socio-economic, sex influences etc can all be factored for. As difficult as it is to ascertain comprehensive truths in a softer science like psychology, people like Dr Peterson are making an honest effort to apply the scientific method.
Or, we could entertain the "alternative science" that he's just a big meany mansplainer.
The only thing I saw resembling statistics there was his 20:1 ratio.
Statistics reveal the what, but not necessarily the why. The why is what matters. Why are women avoiding STEM in far higher proportions that what most reasonable people would think that women could enter the field and be successful? For that, one actually needs to talk with women and listen to the answers.
I'm fairly certain that society is worse off with this extreme representational bias in STEM. You can call it "disinterest," but I'm betting you'd hear the word "discouraged" if you actually asked and listened.
"SheStarts is powered by Australia's leaders in diversity & innovation"
Diversity for women only.That's a misquote if I ever saw one.
I haven't checked out the SheStarts program - but by the title, I would presume it's an opportunity to encourage STARTING down that path.
What do you get as part of the program?
In exchange for 15% equity each founder accepted into the program will each receive:
$AUD100,000 provided by BlueChilli and associated entities to be invested into your incorporated startup. The funds are distributed as a $50,000 cash prize plus a $50,000 investment, and are to be spent, at your discretion, on activities required to build/grow the business.
Full placement in BlueChilli’s six-month 156 accelerator program, including access to Business Advisory services with BlueChilli’s expert in-house team of EIRS, external mentors and a structured program designed to give your idea the best chance of business success and to provide a clear and defined risk profile for future investors.
Strategic support, insights and advice from the SheStarts program partners and collaborators
Access to discounted software product development services from BlueChilli’s team of expert startup software product managers, engineers and designers.
Promotion and exposure via the SheStarts documentary web series, social media and other channels as facilitated by BlueChilli and SheStarts program sponsors
A return economy flight from Sydney to San Francisco to take part in the SheStarts Silicon Valley Immersion program. Flights will be booked by BlueChilli and details of the flights will be at BlueChilli’s discretion in consultation with the finalists.
Untill Mattel releases "Barbie's workshop" or "Barbie's science Lab" collection, nothing will change.
It is indeed sad that there are not more women in engineering fields, it is rare that I ever come across any and this is also represented in forum statistics.
It is indeed sad that there are not more women in engineering fields, it is rare that I ever come across any and this is also represented in forum statistics.
A female tech hired me for my first job.
And here is the interesting thing. Go and ask any engineering channel what their gender stats are and they will all say it's only a few percent female.
Why?
Youtube is the ultimate gateway to free tech information that is available equally to everyone, everywhere, of every gender without any pressure at all from anyone on what you watch or why.
Yet with countless programs encouraging girls to get into engineering over the last decades, many role models etc, it's still only a small percentage. Why...
In the current social climate would the SJW crowd be satisfied if 50% of male engineers decided to identify as women?
Early in this thread a member mentioned that girls need be brought up to know they can do anything...
His essay seemed to be driven by the agenda of dean of Purdue’s school, Dr. Donna Riley.
Trying to reprogram male engineers to be less sexist, regardless how bad it is, is not the task of an engineering school. You can offer a small amounts of humanities, but in the end that's not what anyone is there for.
(I can tell this anecdotally, when there were only one or two women in my high school physics class comprised almost entirely of males. Similarly for chemistry and mathematics. I don't think this was statistically representative of the abilities across the student intake.)
Ability shouldn't be the driver, interest should be the driver.
You can build and learn ability, but it's much harder to build and instill interest in something to someone who doesn't have interest in that area.
So until there is demonstrably equal opportunity and equally available support and encouragement across the board, the whole "but maybe X people are just less interested" argument is a big fucking red herring. This is basic science: you can't isolate one variable unless you can control all of the others. You can't isolate interest without normalizing encouragement, instruction, funding, and culture.
Listen to Jorden Peterson above (who BTW, has spent his career researching such things) and follow the Nordic case studies.
Apparently they have tried to level the playing field in almost every respect, and did isolate the variable, bringing it back to inherent interest differences in men and women, and the result was that there was still that large split.
I did go look into the references for this once but didn't get far, but I'm sure it's out there for those interested.
(I can tell this anecdotally, when there were only one or two women in my high school physics class comprised almost entirely of males. Similarly for chemistry and mathematics. I don't think this was statistically representative of the abilities across the student intake.)
Ability shouldn't be the driver, interest should be the driver.
You can build and learn ability, but it's much harder to build and instill interest in something to someone who doesn't have interest in that area.
Apparently they have tried to level the playing field in almost every respect, and did isolate the variable, bringing it back to inherent interest differences in men and women, and the result was that there was still that large split.
In the current social climate would the SJW crowd be satisfied if 50% of male engineers decided to identify as women?
Trying to reprogram male engineers to be less sexist, regardless how bad it is, is not the task of an engineering school. You can offer a small amounts of humanities, but in the end that's not what anyone is there for. White/Asian men or other minorities/women.
Why can't people simply accept that only a few women are interested in engineering? It's neither a problem, nor does it need to be fixed.
Prof: Social Justice Warriors Destroying Engineering