As it turns out women have barely had any time at all being afforded the same privileges as men[0], and that's just the United States, there remain cultures that are extremely oppressive to women. It also turns out we still tell women from a young age that "they can't".[1] It also turns out there are a ton of biases pushing women out of STEM[2][3][4][5].So when you cite evidence that says men are smarter than women conducted by men standing on the shoulders of a society built for men, you can't be shocked when people question it.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_the_United...
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/389
[2] http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2015/01/double-jeopa...
[3] http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403.full
[4] http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full
m1el|8 years ago
I argue that there are biological differences between men and women, and these differences are causing different representation in STEM fields.
I would also say that today, we're living in the most equal opportunity society than ever before. Let the free market sort itself out. If you try to artificially increase the proportion of women in STEM fields, you will decrease the quality of engineers. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.
> So when you cite evidence that says men are smarter than women conducted by men standing on the shoulders of a society built for men, you can't be shocked when people question it.
So, did they use a flawed methodology? Were these studies sexist? Could you point in which way these studies are sexist? Do you disagree that males often have higher variance in different traits in many species? Do you disagree that men have higher variance in IQ?
BugsJustFindMe|8 years ago
I argue that you don't actually have any reason to believe that the differences are biological instead of social. Certainly, while extremely interesting (I mean that. Not sarcasm.), none of your links demonstrate it. Your links claim to show a difference, but they do not claim to explain the cause of said difference.
> I would also say that today, we're living in the most equal opportunity society than ever before.
You could say all kinds of things and more. But, and I'm not agreeing here that it is actually true, because I'm not fully convinced that it is, even if it _is_ true, being better-than isn't the same as being good.
> Let the free market sort itself out.
Only a properly regulated market ever sorts itself out. Otherwise you end up with natural monopolies, because barriers to entry are historically compounded. This has always been true of marketplaces.
> So, did they use a flawed methodology? Were these studies sexist?
Well, one flaw is that your conclusions don't follow from the studies.