zlacker

Is it conceivable that men and women have different average personal preferences [partly] for reasons which are linked to biology? Certainly, though nobody in this thread has suggested that can't be a factor.

Is it plausible to assume that STEM fields and female participation is a case where stereotypes have very little effect? I think I'd need some pretty strong evidence for the idea stereotypes had little effect on any kind of career choice. Even less so for fields where any mention of stereotypes and gender imbalance garners a furious insistence that the stereotype is [i] irrelevant to anyone's advice or decision making [ii] also such an accurate representation of biologically-driven preferences it would be unfair for the gender ratio to change

>>notaha+(OP)
Linking the notion of men and women to biology is a risky proposition nowadays.

>>notaha+(OP)
Perhaps nobody said it explicitly, but when you see a difference in outcome, computer scientists are mostly men for example, and draw the conclusion that there must be discrimination and stereotyping then you indirectly say that it can’t be due to difference in preferences.

Also, I would think that the person that claims discrimination would have the burden of proof.

>>Grusta+Pd
> Perhaps nobody said it explicitly, but when you see a difference in outcome, computer scientists are mostly men for example, and draw the conclusion that there must be discrimination and stereotyping then you indirectly say that it can’t be due to difference in preferences.

Well yes, if stereotypes or discrimination play any role it at all in career selection, it rules out the possibility that the highly variable ratio of male to female computer scientists is determined solely by biology. This strikes me as a much stronger claim requiring much stronger proof than a statement to the effect that [the well-established existence of] stereotypes is amongst the driving factors in career selection; particularly given that the ratio of male to female computer scientists varies hugely by place and time in ways which would be very difficult to attribute solely to biology.

>>notaha+h21
If stereotypes were a major factor wouldn’t progressive countries like Sweden have more female physicists and programmers than a traditionalist gender role stronghold like Russia? In reality it’s the opposite.

>>Grusta+Pe1
Unless one believes that stereotypes are entirely absent from or irrelevant in progressive countries, not necessarily. It's well established that females in Russia view STEM more positively [not just other possibly more-chauvinist-in-Russia professions more negatively] than in many other countries.

Since it's palpably absurd to attribute this to differences between Russian and other European female biology, I think you've just refuted the argument that biology is likely to be the sole factor determining career choices. Given that we have just proven that cultural attitudes do shape career choices to some extent, perhaps they are even partly influenced by some people's insistence that the only actually problematic attitude towards female participation in their field is considering women equally likely to be suited to the job?

>>notaha+2s1
In Russia and poorer countries the lifestyle of a woman working as a nurse or teacher is radically different from one working as an engineer. In Scandinavia the difference is very small, you'll send your kids to the same schools, the same universities, you have the same medical care anyway, so you can afford to work with something you enjoy.

I don't really understand your logic. The biology is the same in both places, but we can all agree that Sweden is 100 times more progressive. Even if you claim there are still stereotyping here, their effect would be much much smaller. How can that be reconciled with the much larger disparities we see in Sweden?