The Gender-Equality Paradox. Feminism bad for STEM?

[Guest]

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

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

The three most feminist countries in the world have a small percentage of women graduating in STEM. According to the authors of the study, "A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects."


A scatterplot of countries based on their number of female STEM graduates and their Global Gender Gap Index (y-axis), a measure of opportunities for women (Psychological Science)

My thoughts unrelated to the paper.

I think narrowing the STEM gender gap would eliminate the "gender pay gap" in the US, but it seems that won't happen anytime soon. I just hope that the Democrats stop blaming sexism for the "gender pay gap".

Pete Buttigieg just wrote on USAToday "But we’ve also seen that women, overall, continue to earn just 85 cents on the dollar — and women of color even less... First, our plan will close the pay and wealth gaps. That means guaranteeing equal pay for equal work... we’ll make available over $50 billion to grow women-owned businesses so we can all benefit from that economic growth."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 071159002/

So apparently that guy is not so brilliant or educated. Buttigieg now wants to create sexist laws.

[_EAllusion]

The study you refer to has the opposite implication you seem to have taken from it. Read your explanatory quote again. Think about what it means.

[_DoubtingThomas]

The study you refer to has the opposite implication you seem to have taken from it.

Please explain.

[_EAllusion]

The study you refer to has the opposite implication you seem to have taken from it.

Please explain.

Nah. It's already explained. You just need to read it.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Read your explanatory quote again. Think about what it means.

According to the Atlantic, "Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose stem professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... em/553592/

What did I miss? Please tell me.

Now, I think the STEM gap explains much of the so-called gender pay gap in the US.

[_EAllusion]

Read your explanatory quote again. Think about what it means.

According to the Atlantic, "Meanwhile, less gender-equal countries tend to also have less social support for people who, for example, find themselves unemployed. Thus, the authors suggest, girls in those countries might be more inclined to choose stem professions, since they offer a more certain financial future than, say, painting or writing."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... em/553592/

What did I miss? Please tell me.

Now, I think the STEM gap explains much of the so-called gender pay gap in the US.

You seem to think the paper supports the idea that the gender pay gap is at least in part explained by systemic cultural discrimination against women is refuted by the idea that women in more gender-equal societies tend to perform better than men in STEM subjects on average, but go into STEM fields as a career less than average as compared to less gender equal societies. This does not follow and is not the explanatory story the paper is telling you. The paper already explains it, so read it. I suspect you want to think something like, "Women naturally prefer things other than STEM, but financial pressures in less gender-equal societies force them into it," but that's not what the paper is saying. That's an irresponsible reading of the data.

You seem on the one hand obsessed being a good scientific thinker, but on the other hand are terrible at making scientific inferences and tend to read your personal biases into papers. This consistently dances around your super-cringey posts on gender and sex.

[_DoubtingThomas]

You seem to think the paper supports the idea that the gender pay gap .

The paper says nothing about the gender pay gap in the US. The paper only explains why there is a low percentage of women graduating in STEM.

The paper already explains it, so read it. I suspect you want to think something like, "Women naturally prefer things other than STEM, but financial pressures in less gender-equal societies force them into it," but that's not what the paper is saying. That's an irresponsible reading of the data.

You seem on the one hand obsessed being a good scientific thinker, but on the other hand are terrible at making scientific inferences and tend to read your personal biases into papers..

The paper is saying, "Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality."

You always add words to my mouth. It is not the first time you do it.

Hey at least I don't do bad Math. Honestly, where did you get the 2,500 x 2,500?

The paper clearly says, "Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality."

How am I misreading?

women in more gender-equal societies tend to perform better than men in STEM subjects on average

That is expected because there are less women in STEM (but more women in college). So only the smartest and most passionate women choose it.

You told me, "on the other hand are terrible at making scientific inferences and tend to read your personal biases into papers". What you tell me may be right, but so far you are not explaining anything.

You told me some months ago

You appear to care a lot about what science has to say DT. The cynical reading of you is that you're just cloaking your base desires in a veneer of scientific concern, but I think somewhere in there you actually care a lot about what science has to say about subjects you weigh in on. The kind of reasoning you are engaging in here shows scientific illiteracy. To the extent you care about what science is actually saying, you need to do some self-reflection.

Second, and more importantly, it does not follow from the fact that there is a statistically significant difference between the distribution of well-being among people who had sex at age 17 and at age 25 that the former group is doing awesome and the the latter group is doomed to misery. These are overlapping distributions. Portraying yourself as in dire circumstances because you happen to belong to a demographic that does, on average, somewhat (slightly) worse than another demographic is irresponsible with the science and highly misleading. This is like finding out you have a gene that makes you 4% more likely to get prostate cancer, and responding by moping about how you are doomed.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=51224&start=441

Just to remind you I didn't say anything about being "doomed to misery". I was just discussing possibilities and probabilities. Sure, nobody knows the right answer, we can only guess and speculate because there is not enough data.

I probably do need some self-reflection and improve but please stop adding words to my mouth.

So can you please explain. Please!

Ins't the paper directly saying "Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality."?

Is the video also misrepresenting the study?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn3yqmiwKAk

[_EAllusion]

The paper is saying, "Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality."

You always add words to my mouth. It is not the first time you do it.

Oh, I wrote a post for you in which commented on the paper by saying, "I think narrowing the STEM gender gap would eliminate the "gender pay gap" in the US, but it seems that won't happen anytime soon. I just hope that the Democrats stop blaming sexism for the "gender pay gap".

Then followed it up with,

"Pete Buttigieg just wrote on USAToday "But we’ve also seen that women, overall, continue to earn just 85 cents on the dollar — and women of color even less... First, our plan will close the pay and wealth gaps. That means guaranteeing equal pay for equal work... we’ll make available over $50 billion to grow women-owned businesses so we can all benefit from that economic growth."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 071159002/

So apparently that guy is not so brilliant or educated. Buttigieg now wants to create sexist laws."

That was me? Because my memory and eyes says it was you. The paper does not allow you to conclude that gender pay gap or even STEM gaps are a function of something other than sexual discrimination. It's strictly neutral to that hypothesis and the implication runs in the opposite direction you are implying. The data doesn't tell you what you want it to.

I'm vaguely reminded of a similar message board to this one circa early 2000's in which they used a study showing homosexuals in societies that are more friendly to gay rights had a higher rate of suicide to argue that high rates of suicide in homosexual populations must be related to something other than how societies treat homosexuals. (Namely, that being homosexual is psychologically harmful.) That did not follow for the roughly the same reason what you are saying, but not saying, but yes, actually saying does not follow.

So only the smartest and most passionate women choose it.

The paper doesn't say that. It doesn't measure "passion" for STEM among 14 year olds or whatever and track if they are the one's who follow that career path. And you'd run the risk of defining passion in a circular fashion if you presumed those who go into the field were the passionate ones.

Maybe there's a high discriminatory atmosphere in those fields compared to others, even in relatively gender equal societies, and this pushes women into fields where this is not as present. Perhaps in less gender equal societies, there isn't as sharp of a contrast because even more fields have such atmosphere, so the lucrative nature of the field and lowered economic opportunity causes them to be less adverse to it. Would that be consistent with the data DT? Or perhaps it is worse, but economic pressure overcomes it anyway. Would that be consistent with the data DT? Or maybe more gender equal societies create fewer economic pressures on women, giving them more freedom in career choices, which paradoxically allows gender stereotyped social pressures about feminine career choices to have greater influence. Would that be consistent with the data DT?

Hey at least I don't do bad Math. Honestly, where did you get the 2,500 x 2,500?

What?

The paper only explains why there is a low percentage of women graduating in STEM.

No it doesn't. It finds an inverse correlation between sex differences in STEM graduation and measures of economic opportunity. It explains this relationship as a consequence of greater pressure to make ends meat on women in societies with lower economic opportunity increasing engagement with STEM career paths.

[Guest]

True, there are other possibilities, but doubtful. So what is the best explanation?

Maybe there's a high discriminatory atmosphere in those fields compared to others, even in relatively gender equal societies, and this pushes women into fields where this is not as present.

That is a nice theory. Can you give me some evidence? Why is it not the case with medical doctors in feminist countries?

Okay, I fully read your response and just corrected some of my comments.

[_EAllusion]

That is a nice theory. Can you give me some evidence?

You're the one drawing inappropriate conclusions. It's your job to eliminate confounds, not demand others demonstrate other potential explanations for the data are correct.

Why is it not the case with medical doctors in feminist countries?

Why would it have to be? "Feminist countries" is a misnomer, but it's up to you to demonstrate why you'd expect otherwise.