zlacker

>>andren+(OP)
> Many academics in the modern world seem obsessed with the sex difference in engagement with science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) fields. Or rather they are obsessed with the fact that there are more men than women in some of these fields. There is particular concern about the lack of women in prestigious STEM fields, such as Ph.D.-level faculty positions, but surprisingly there is no concern about the under-representation of women in lower-level technical jobs, such as car mechanics or plumbing.

Obsessed as in "doing science on socially relevant topics?"

> These differences are socially important because these tend to be prestigious occupations, and practically important because the different numbers of men and women in these fields contribute, in part, to the sex difference in earnings.1

So... "doing science on relevant topics."

Why misrepresent that as an "obsession?"

>>jancsi+8N
I think you're making a fair point, that there's a value judgment going on there.

But I also think it's a fair question why gender differences are such a huge focus right now, as compared to say class problems (MOST Americans don't have $500 in savings [1]), or environmental problems (Men's sperm counts have gone down by half in the last 30 years [2]).

Obviously these aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a case to be made that the amount of energy/money going into this problem isn't proportional to its severity.

1. http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings... 2. https://www.npr.org/2017/07/31/539517210/sperm-counts-plumme...