The Gender-Equality Paradox. Feminism bad for STEM?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Oh brother. No, it’s not my responsibility to provide proof to counteract YOUR assertions..

Do you have any evidence that universities are discriminating female students in STEM? Is it significant?

Do you have any evidence that women are discriminated much more in STEM than in any other fields?

How do you explain the STEM gap and how do you explain the gender pay gap in the US?

[_Lemmie]

Oh brother. No, it’s not my responsibility to provide proof to counteract YOUR assertions..

Do you have any evidence that universities are discriminating female students in STEM? Is it significant?

Do you have any evidence that women are discriminated much more in STEM than in any other fields?

How do you explain the STEM gap and how do you explain the gender pay gap in the US?

It's your OP, read your own references and make your own points.

[_DoubtingThomas]

It's your OP, read your own references and make your own points.

Okay, in Mexico there is a lot of gender stereotyping, discrimination, and sexism, but Mexico has more female STEM graduates than the US and feminist countries. Sexism in the US is nothing compared to the sexism Mexico, including sexism in Mexican STEM, but that doesn't stop Mexican women from enrolling in STEM. Sexism cannot fully explain the STEM gap in the US, and there is no evidence that there is a lot of sexism in universities. Sexism is probably not common in American universities.



My other argument is that the STEM gap is contributing a lot to the gender pay gap in the US. Most of the gender pay gap in the US is not due to sexism.

[_Lemmie]

It's your OP, read your own references and make your own points.

Sexism cannot fully explain the STEM gap in the US, and there is no evidence that there is a lot of sexism in universities. Sexism is probably not common in American universities.
[chart snipped.]
My other argument is that the STEM gap is contributing a lot to the gender pay gap in the US. Most of the gender pay gap in the US is not due to sexism.

None of those arguments are in the OP article that chart comes from, so including it with your opinions is misleading at best.

If these are just your opinions, then it’s already been pointed out where they come from, and there is no point in engaging them. Your biases and negative attitudes regarding women are well documented. See a therapist.

[Guest]

None of those arguments are in the OP article that chart comes from, so including it with your opinions is misleading at best.

According to the study, "This is a paradox, because gender-equal countries are those that give girls and women more educational and empowerment opportunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)....We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girls are relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sex differences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways. The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength, which also seems to be common academic advice given to students, at least in the United Kingdom (e.g., Gardner, 2016; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, 2015)."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=pssa

Your biases and negative attitudes regarding women are well documented.

What is your problem? You are crazy! Get help.

[_DoubtingThomas]

which paradoxically allows gender stereotyped social pressures about feminine career choices to have greater influence. Would that be consistent with the data DT?.

According to the research study, "This is a paradox, because gender-equal countries are those that give girls and women more educational and empowerment opportunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)....We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girls are relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sex differences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways. The differences are expected on the basis of expectancy-value theory and are consistent with prior research (Eccles, 1983; Wang & Degol, 2013). The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength, which also seems to be common academic advice given to students, at least in the United Kingdom (e.g., Gardner, 2016; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, 2015)."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=pssa

[Guest]

Your biases and negative attitudes regarding women

According to the research study, "This is a paradox, because gender-equal countries are those that give girls and women more educational and empowerment opportunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)....We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girls are relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sex differences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways. The differences are expected on the basis of expectancy-value theory and are consistent with prior research (Eccles, 1983; Wang & Degol, 2013). The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength, which also seems to be common academic advice given to students, at least in the United Kingdom (e.g., Gardner, 2016; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, 2015)."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=pssa

I didn't know research was a negative attitude towards women.

[_DoubtingThomas]

"Independent of absolute levels of performance, boys on average had personal academic strengths in science and mathematics, and girls in reading comprehension. Thus, even when girls’ absolute science scores were higher than those of boys, as in Finland, boys were often better in science relative to their overall academic average. Similarly, girls might have scored higher than boys in science, but they were often even better in reading...We also found that boys often expressed higher self-efficacy, more joy in science and a broader interest in science than girls. These differences were also larger in more gender equal countries, and were related to the students’ personal academic strength. "


So are you still going to blame the patriarchy?

[_Lemmie]

According to the study, ”This is a paradox, because gender-equal countries are those that give girls and women more educational and [b]empowerment opportunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)....We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girls are relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sex differences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways. The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength, which also seems to be common academic advice given to students, at least in the United Kingdom (e.g., Gardner, 2016; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, 2015)."[/b]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=pssa

So there is no evidence that sexism explains most of the gender STEM gap in the US, and there is no evidence that sexism is common in American universities.

What game are you playing, DT? Right in the middle of the quote I bolded above, you left out a sentence, but you do not indicate with ellipses that you did so. Here’s the quote, with the sentence you left out bolded:

We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girlsare relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sexdifferences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways.The differences are expected based on expectancy value theory and are consistent with prior research (Eccles, 1983; Wang &Degol, 2013). The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic pathsthat are a personal strength, which also seems to be common academic advice given to students,at least in the UK (e.g., Gardner, 2016; UCAS, 2015)

Now why would you have left that out in such a sneaky way?

Maybe because of what “expectancy value theory” results imply?

...the expectancy value model. This model describes how expectancies may be linked to gender discrimination in occupations. For example, females are expected by society to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_sexism

So, in the part you excerpted to support your opinion of no sexism as an explanation, you dishonestly left out the one sentence, in the middle of your quote, that indicated gender discrimination (i.e. sexism) is indeed one of their explanations.

I notice when you responded to Eallusion, you left that missing quote in. Why? It’s very difficult not to conclude you are being intellectually dishonest in support of your inappropriate biases about women and gender.

You’re wasting my time. There’s no point in looking at anything further you post. Get help. See a therapist.

[Guest]

Maybe because of what “expectancy value theory” results imply?

Why are you quoting the Wikipedia? Are you serious? "According to the expectancy-value model, expectations for success and task value are shaped by a combination of factors. These include child characteristics (abilities, previous experiences, goals, self-concepts, beliefs, expectations, interpretations) and environmental influences (cultural milieu, socializers’ beliefs and behaviors)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ps ... lue-theory

The paper makes it clear, " The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength" and "”This is a paradox, because gender-equal countries are those that give girls and women more educational and empowerment opportunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)". Where is the sexism in feminist countries ? Don't cherry-pick the quotes. What part of "promote girls’ and women’s" is not clear?

"We also found that boys often expressed higher self-efficacy, more joy in science and a broader interest in science than girls. These differences were also larger in more gender equal countries, and were related to the students’ personal academic strength."

So, in the part you excerpted to support your opinion of no sexism as an explanation

I said, "Sexism cannot fully explain the STEM gap in the US, and there is no evidence that there is a lot of sexism in universities." and "there is no evidence that sexism explains most of the gender STEM gap in the US"

I do not deny that sexism may contribute in the US.

Seriously, what part of "promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields" is not clear??