“Totally admirable intention”

What? That’s not admirable at all. That’s blatant sexism.

“(STEM is 100% historically discriminatory to women)”

Lol no, if anything it’s clearly discriminatory towards men in the false assumption that low female population isn’t an internal cause

I posted these links elsewhere in the thread, but I'll post them again. Pretty much every job has a gender imbalance to some degree or another.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/E...

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/software-deve...

Gender imbalance on it's own doesn't say everything. You should actually talk with women in STEM. Many of them shared their horrible experiences so far.

Source?

I agree we should work to reduce horrible experiences.

My point is that we shouldn't be surprised by a gender imbalance on priors. By itself, a gender imbalance only goes to show that software engineering is like a lot of other jobs.

BTW, my suspicion is that similar experiences happen in many industries, and industries vary according to (a) how horrible a given experience is said to be and (b) social norms around registering a complaint.

> STEM is 100% historically discriminatory to women

Is this a Western/US thing? Woman STEM graduates outnumber man in a number of countries. Mine and Iran for example but most Muslim countries have strong woman numbers.

I don't think STEM in the west is discriminatory to women, out of the blue. It can't be more discriminatory than Iran? Unless, there is data and research that suggests otherwise.

Not just Muslim countries but Asia’s numbers are more even too. Not sure what happened but the West got leapfrogged by a lot of the rest of the world in this regard. We like to think we’re the shining light of progressivism but the reality may be more complicated than that.

There's a study showing more progressive countries have fewer women in tech. Because when people don't have to worry about putting a roof over their head, affording food and medical bills, they're more likely to pick the career that interests them. And fewer women are interested in STEM. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more... In Asia and the middle east people are generally poorer and with fewer opportunities (and there's much less social welfare there), so they need to prioritise economics over interest when choosing a career.

I can only speak of my country (still a Muslim country though more liberal than your average). The reason woman study super-hard is that it gives them freedom. It's not accepted, socially, for a woman, for example, to take a trip to another city and stay alone in a hotel. However, it's totally okay if she is a medical doctor or an engineer in a mission. The same for travelling outside of the country.

These might be strong incentives for woman to pursue STEM degrees. These same incentives don't exist for Western woman since they already have their freedoms unquestioned. Also, a little note: This is just a speculation from me (less than an opinion) might be completely wrong.

Asian countries developed much later. That is why some countries also have mobile payments instead of credit cards. Because credit cards never became the incumbent in the first place. Many western countries have a relatively unbroken history from early industrialism to post-WWII development to home computers in the 80s to early Internet startups. Japan, which developed earlier than India or China, doesn't have a high percentage of women in STEM. The US used to have a higher percentage of women in computer science in the 80s when it was a less popular field. If you instead look at gender distribution in something older like politics or the military western countries often do a lot better than the rest of the world.

I think the issue is one of hiring, promotion, and pay. It's widely reported in the USA that women generally do better in school than men.

> STEM is 100% historically discriminatory to women

So that women prefer to pick other fields is STEM's fault?

That women face negative pressure when they go into STEM is a real and documented problem.

Negative pressure from who?

From the peers.

The main reason why girls are not choosing STEM is because it doesn't intrest them as much. You can try to put the blame on anything you want, but that's reality.

I love technical things and am the father of 1 son and 3 girls. I of course would love to do technical things with all of them. With my son it's easy to get him excited about lego and such. With my girls? Well, maybe you should give it a try. I decided to play with my kids the things they like to play with. And with my girls it's (unfortunately for me) non technical things.

This preference is also highly documented in gender equal societies. So do us all a favor and stop talking bullshit while it's obvious why women don't select STEM: they don't want to.

PS: My oldest daughter is going to follow STEM next year. I'm happy, but mainly wish her to be happy. If she continues it, fine. If she decides she wants to do something else, also fine. She's good at math so that's the main reason she picked it.

Are your girls representative of the entire female population?

Seems like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox#:~:tex....

This whole thread is nothing but documentation of the reverse; men being discriminated against left right and center, women being given fake interviews where they're guaranteed to get hired anyway due to Diversity! managers, team re-orgs where the explicitly feminist manager somehow totally by coincidence selects every single woman to be a TL and creates exactly enough teams for them to lead, etc.

In contrast this "real and documented" is just an assertion. I never saw any evidence of it.

It's the fault of STEM when women arrive and totally dominate the classes and yet are still not awarded recognition and opportunity, yes.

See: Philippa Fawcett "above the Senior Wrangler"

I don't know where you did STEM related education, but in my environment a women in a group project would get extra points relative to the rest. So I saw the exact opposite of what you describe.

And at work, women seems to rise to management levels easier than men. But hey, this is EU, not US.

Edit: you're pointing me to something that happened in 1890? WTF???

> 100% historically discriminatory to women

You replied to a comment about historically - and what was once a pattern still persists to a lesser degree.

The roots of higher education were laid with the exclusion of women baked in.

So women are now excluded from education like the olden days? Wtf?

Indeed .. why exactly would you think that?

Is this your thing is it, incorrectly framing what others write and then appending. Wtf?

You claim that STEM discriminates women today because of something that happened in 1890.

I would like to see some evidence of that related to today, not something from 1890. And not your empty statement of "what was once a pattern still persists to a lesser degree".

Maybe here is something you should read, which refers to the state as it is today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox#:~:tex....

> You claim that STEM discriminates women today because of something that happened in 1890.

No.

You claim that I made that claim.

I made no assertation of causal linkage, I merely pointed out a historic fact about the roots of modern education in the UK and US.

Your words:

> and what was once a pattern still persists to a lesser degree.

. . . and you read that as evidence of a causal relationship then?

And you'd like me to defend something that you see there?

This is your thing is it, framing what others say and then demanding they defend your reading?

Doing well in classes doesn't award recognition and opportunity for men either, though. STEM only values experience.

This is the problem: It is believed that, at least historically, STEM only pushed itself on boys. They were given lego, electronic kits, etc. while girls were given dolls, kitchen sets, etc. Once one was ready to enter the working world, men had that experience to lean on. Women not so much.

I'm not sure how applicable that is anymore, though. It's quite okay, even encouraged, for girls to play with 'boys' toys these days.

> Doing well in classes doesn't award recognition and opportunity for men either, though.

Read bio's of everybody who got "Senior Wrangler" from (say) 1850 onwards, it's a great read and a number of them founded majar US seats of learning.

Now read the bio of the women who out thought all of them.

> STEM only values experience.

All of them started out as new born babies and progressed through school having no world experience until they got some on the back of offered opportunities or private wealth.

STEM today is built upon people with no initial experience who gain it along the way.

Or you know, "the classes" have nothing to do with real life performance as per usual in our school/academia world.