DoubtingThomas wrote:Lemmie wrote:“Just less interested in STEM than men” is the lowest rated category, with only 18% of adults perceiving that, and yet that’s the reason you keep suggesting.
Nope, I said, "Gender-stereotyping may contribute, but it is obviously not the only reason why so few women join CS, physics, and Math 55. It may be the case that most women simply do not like STEM".
It is still true that most college students do not like STEM.[/b]
So your argument that you did not say women are less interested in STEM than men, is to say it again, and justify it with your unsupported opinion that most students don’t like STEM.
no it does NOT! Look at the source you gave, it does NOT say that at all.The 18% only represents female STEM graduates that are not working, so the 18% is very very high. [/b] Please do not misrepresent me.
you do not look at the numbers, and my quote came from the article you referenced that summed up the numbers you are incorrectly representing, it was not an “opinion.”Lemmie wrote: For women working in science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) jobs, the workplace is a different, sometimes more hostile environment than the one their male coworkers experience. Discrimination and sexual harassment are seen as more frequent, and gender is perceived as more of an impediment than an advantage to career success.
I look more at the numbers, not opinions. The same is true for all jobs, it is not a STEM only problem, in fact women experience less discrimination and less sexual harassment in CS. I will come back with references. And as I said, "actual discrimination may be much lower than 39% because human perception is unreliable and because the statistic is selective"
Your “as I said” quote has no reference, for the second time. Document it please.
document that, please. It is not in the editorial you are associating it with.Lemmie wrote:That’s your own private bias talking, nothing else. As I mentioned earlier, “your attitudes, stereotyping, and cringey posts about women and sex are beginning to make more sense.”
About half of all American women believe they are unfairly making less than men.
According to CNN, "One recent Harvard working paper analyzing Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority data found there was no gender pay gap at all, once all factors are controlled for...This Equal Pay Day, like all other days, it's dangerous for women to let media figures or politicians try to build or distort a stumbling block in front of us. It's dangerous to build or distort this block in front of ourselves, too."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/02/opinions ... index.html
Do you read your links? From the abstract of the Harvard paper,
Even in a unionized environment where work tasks are similar, hourly wages are identi- cal, and tenure dictates promotions, female workers earn $0.89 on the male-worker dollar (weekly earnings). We use confidential administrative data on bus and train operators from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to show that the weekly earnings gap can be explained by the workplace choices that women and men make. Women value time away from work and flexibility more than men, taking more unpaid time off using the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and working fewer overtime hours than men...
Gee I wonder why the workplace choices are gender-based, it’s almost as though gender expectations and discriminations may influence them!
You continue your quote with ellipses, as though the two comments you quote are related, but they are not. Here is the context of the rest of your quote:
But the bottom line is that it's disempowering to tell women that the marketplace is fundamentally tilted against them or to imply that the problem is insurmountable. This Equal Pay Day, like all other days, it's dangerous for women to let media figures or politicians try to build or distort a stumbling block in front of us. It's dangerous to build or distort this block in front of ourselves, too.
It's time to give women a real portrait of just how far we've come and more precisely target how our society can improve.
That is a far different message than the one you tried to imply.