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. ... Proponents of these theories and their activist followers believe that some significant proportion of the sex differences in STEM fields – but curiously only those in which men outnumber women ...

Completely leaving aside the rest of content, the only obsessed people here are those who are obsessed with not understanding what the issue is about perceiving it to be an obsession. We are not obsessed with the number of women in STEM for its own sake (it's an important but a secondary concern) but obsessed with the inequality of power. As women happen to be underrepresented precisely in those areas that confer power -- including some STEM fields -- that is what we care about. If women were underrepresented in software engineering but commensurately overrepresented in, say, politics, banking or high management, this would have been a matter of less concern. As women happen to be underrepresented in all of these, we're attacking each of these individually.

Of course, those of us who are in STEM also feel that women underrepresentation (aside from the much more important issue of power equality) is a huge loss of talent for our field.

>>pron+xk
But what if the under-representation is due to women not being as interested in the field?

>>jeffre+gL
First, why are they less interested? Second, like I said, the problem is an overall unfair distribution of power. I find it very hard to believe that women are so uninterested in all professions that confer power to the point that they're willing to give up power (and therefore freedom) to not practice them.

>>pron+WL
I've worked in the finance industry and the tech industry, both industries where women are underrepresented. These industries would love to employ more women. When I worked in finance the recruiters spent a ton of effort trying to get women to apply, but they couldn't get anywhere close to 50/50 in terms of number of applicants. Maybe women (on average, not outliers obviously) value other things more than power? At least in finance it's incredibly demanding to be at the top. The work is consuming and if you aren't willing to put in the time someone else will and will take your job. It isn't really compatible with a traditional family life.

>>jeffre+aN
But the whole point of almost every kind activism is to change what has so far been called the traditional way of life -- from the struggle of the plebeians and patricians in ancient Rome, through the French Revolution and abolition to women's suffrage and desegregation (and even, you could say, that of vegetarians) -- because the traditional way of life distributes power unequally (that's an objective fact) and unfairly (that's a subjective opinion). It's fine to say that you think that the current distribution of power should remain (because you think that this unequal distribution is fair for some other reasons or because equality of power among large groups of people is not one of your values) -- that's what conservatism is about -- but it's not fine to deny it or claim that those who want to change the current distribution of power are "obsessed". The tactic of claiming that the marginalized don't even really want their share of power is also an old and ultimately unsuccessful one. The argument that we want more women but they aren't there is also weak, just as saying "we want rich and educated black land-owners to run local farming associations but there aren't any" during the reconstruction would have been. Social change occurs as a result of activism; it's a slow process and one that always meets plenty of opposition.

The real argument is this: do you think that women should (meaning that it is our priority as a society to make that happen, and that means changing things) have equal power or not?