Are the sciences sexist? A new study reveals the truth | FACTUAL FEMINIST
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 12. 2014
- It’s the conventional wisdom that women are held back in science because of sexism. A new paper by a research team at Cornell University reports that young women faculty members prosper in math-based fields of science. Statistically, women are less likely to continue on in certain science fields, but there are cultural conventions that need to be taken into account. Visiting Factual Feminist Sally Satel will discuss these factors in this episode. Let us know what you think by leaving a comment below!
Watch more of the Factual Feminist
czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
Subscribe AEI's CZcams Channel
/ aeivideo. .
Like us on Facebook
/ aeionline
Follow us on Twitter
/ aei
For more Information
goo.gl/ChiQYD
Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.
In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset.
The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials.
#news #politics #feminism #feminist #science
© American Enterprise Institute
Partial Transcript:
Hi, I am Sally Satel, resident scholar at AEI, today's Visiting Factual Feminist.
Today, it’s the conventional wisdom that women are held back in science because of sexism. But a new paper by a Cornell University research team reports that young women faculty members prosper in math-based fields of science coming up next on the factual feminist.
A research team lead by Cornell University’s Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams asked why men hold less than one third of the tenure track positions in math-intensive fields such as physics, chemistry, geoscience, and engineering.
They examined several hundred analyses of recent data on hiring, salary, promotion, productivity and job satisfaction. And found that academic women fare as well as men in professional achievement and satisfaction in math-intensive science fields.
PhD women are as likely as men to be invited to interview for a tenure-track job, to be offered such a job; to receive comparable salaries and be promoted as often to assistant professor. Their rates of grant funding rates are comparable with men. They work similar hours; and express similar levels of career satisfaction. Against this backdrop, there was an interesting pattern in publication rate.
For women without children , the rate was the same as that of men without children -but women with children published at the lowest rate.. Men with children are the most productive. Now, the data from childless men and childless women suggests that there are not sexist barriers to women's success, but what about women with children- The ones with the lowest publication rate? While research is needed to fill in the picture, but you could speculate that this disparity exists because fathers are more likely to have a spouse caring full-time for their children than mothers. It’s not rocket science: it is easier to have kids and a career if someone else is doing the lion's share of the child care. This reflects cultural conventions, not sexism. Even so, it appears that these differences in publication did not affect promotion to asst prof. So. If biases don’t explain the underrepresentation of women in the tenure track in math-intensive fields, what does? mThe biggest reasons, according to the Cornell researchers and others, are rooted in women’s earlier educational choices (college courses), and in their occupational and lifestyle preferences. mBut preferences are shaped and one important influence is exposure to science education and to academic role models: Indeed, if women took introductory science courses early in their college education, the data showed, they were actually more likely than men to switch into majors in math-intensive fields of science - especially so if their instructors were women. Right now, only 25 to 40% of new professors are women, but as more women that enter these fields and become instructors, the more female students can be inspired. When Ceci and Williams presented the highlights of their work in a New York Times op-ed, there was blow back. One science commentator found the piece to contain “flawed and offensive logic”…He readily admitted to not having read the full article. Critics claimed that the authors turned a blind eye to workplace hostility -- thereby overlooking the hostile forces to which the women were surely subject. Instead, the author focused on more easily measurable outcome variables.
#aei #news #politics #government #education #feminism #feminist
They're going to call you anti-feminist for this, you know. Great video, more factual feminism, please.
SJWs love wasting time constructing their ist lists and calling anyone who doesn't agree anti-feminist!
***** Or a troll / male sock puppet.
Matthew Dolby Indeed. In the UK a poll was done in 2010 relating to the election I think, 1/2 women in the UK thereabout don't identify as feminist. Significantly fewer identify as radical feminists, there were slightly more non-identifying men but not significantly more. So the idea that feminist is synonymous with women or anti-feminist synonymous with man is another myth that is deeply annoying. No one should claim to speak for an entire frigging sex!
Anti-feminist == anyone who says 'hey, maybe things aren't quite as horrific for women as the hysterics are saying'
***** Even feminism from the early 1900's were rotten to the core. They sent many, many men to prison because they couldn't pay their separated wive's taxes due to feminist bills past in that era.
The only era of feminism that was on track was during WWII because they were the ones that kept the country running at efficiency while all the men were at war.
I'm studying physics and computer science. There are more men in both cases, but at least in physics, it's relatively even (about 60:40 male:female) in the courses I take. And gender (or race or sexual orientation or whatever) is simply not an issue. We are all together in the trenches, trying to dodge the bullets the professors are firing at us. Metaphorically speaking. When we have problems to solve, we help each other, no questions asked. And I don't think that's anything out of the ordinary, I think that's how ordinary people behave. This whole "stem fields are misogynistic" stuff is really annoying.
Notice how people that claim STEM is anti-women tend to be people that are not in STEM!
*****
Exactly that. Though I know there are a few, but I guess there are also religious people in stem fields. It's the exceptions that prove the rule.
Still, my favorite episode on this topic was when a gender studies student was loudly complaining about too few women in computer science, and I asked her if she would like to join us, since I was on my way to a class. Her answer, without a hint of irony: "No, it doesn't interest me."
And if there is any idea thats generally accepted by society that prevents women from wanting to go into these fields in the first place, its the "if you go into these fields you will be a victim of sexism" idea.
***** For once I just want to know what the end-goal of feminist gender-ideologues is. What would "equality" look like? So I know what in the hell they're aiming for since from here it looks like they'll be tilting at windmills for eternity.
From Medicine and we pretty much do the same. Hide in the trenches, talk to our fellow students and come up with a plan to storm for that perfect grade. We have little time to discuss about gender issues when we all have to make it at the end.
I call BS. Everyone knows that it's shirts holding women back.
Obviously. I mean, take this one for example:
i.imgur.com/BZgsNF1.png
Don't you realize? It wasn't just a shirt with cartoon women, it was a uniform of the Patriarchy. He got back from a secret meeting, and forgot to take off his uniform for his public interview. Feminists happen to be the only ones who are aware of what the uniform looks like, and so they rightly got upset, as he only started working for the ESA in order to scout for another planet to colonize, keeping only a few women to use strictly as human incubators, and then blow up Earth, leaving behind all the women to die. But not before eye raping them, belittling them, and using them as masturbation accessories.
dont forget being called bossy destroys women's hopes and aspirations in life, so its not just shirts right?
James Connolly You know what I like best about your idea?
It implies the feminists are at the meeting of the patriarchy helping to keep women down.
And when you look at their "treat us like children because we're mentally and physically weaker than men" sexist talk they use, it makes that implication seem just about right.
"I've read the statistics yet I will criticise them because I do not like the outcome"
That's essentially what they critics of this study have said, no data for their own convictions yet they will happily ignore this data to push their narrative.
Personally, I think it'd be great to see more women in the computer sciences.
As a web developer, I only tend to run into female web designers, rarely devs.
"Personally, I think it'd be great to see more women in the computer sciences."
As long as you aren't pushing for them to be there when they don't want to be like feminists (and taking positions in classes from men who may want them simply because of useless quotas), then that's fine.
"As a web developer, I only tend to run into female web designers, rarely devs."
Indeed, I've noticed a lot of designers are too. Though, with the game company I work for the lead game devs, as well as the player support, forum support, web design, web QA, game QA, moderation, and game test teams are mostly female.
It's rather silly when people like Anita Sarkeesian try to say females are somehow scared away from game development and even playing games for similar reasons when not only I am and do, but I work with about 400 people all around the world who are about 70% female - most of whom started as normal players playing the games the company made and got involved in their forums.
Tessa Bain
Agreed, there's no point forcing someone to do work they won't even be interested in. I'd just be curious to talk to more female devs, mainly to see if their approach varies wildly from male developers code.
Interesting that alot of leads are female in your studio, I do self-employed work so I run into alot of business owners.
What I tend to see in male-female business partners is the women prefer to take organisational roles whereas the men prefer to do the technical work (not a bad thing, someone needs to make videos, someone needs to do accounts and talk to clients)
I find it silly when anyone argues that women are scared away from anything, because usually these people are the ones that will say "Women are stronger than men" in their next breath.
Well...why just women? Would it be also great to see more black people or native American people, male or female? Why just consider only women. The emphasis on promoting women as a group should end. Other groups need greater support now than women as a group do, talking about western society anyway, especially white middle class women. Feminism is obsolete.
My question is: why is it so important to have gender "equality" in those fields? I don't see any feminist cry about inequality in less glamorous jobs like construction, plumbing, mechanics, etc.
All I see here is that we're making programs and laws to push women into fields that they don't seem all that interested in and most importantly we completely forget about the men that do want to get into those fields. When chemistry departments are closing because gender equality quotas are closed in the UK for example, no one seem to flinch even though those chemistry department would have remained open if more men were allowed to get in.
This mentality to want to encourage women to get in all the high-paying jobs, to get women to succeed at all costs, makes us also ignore men at every levels of education. Men are dropping out of schools at appalling rates at every levels of education because the system caters to women and girls and does not about men and boys that fail because of it: "girls aren't doing well in school. Oh my god we have to do something about it" vs "boys aren't doing well in school. Why are those privileged brats complaining about?"
Also, what you said about women with children vs men with children… Other researches have shown that when a men learns his wife is pregnant he will increase his workload a huge amount for the needs of the child, while a woman getting pregnant will most likely reduce her workload significantly. It has also been shown that divorced men that still have part of the custody of their children will be more likely to pay the child support. It would seem that men will work harder to provide for their children while women will work less hard to take care of them.
"inequality in [...] construction, plumbing", nor nursing, midwifery and childcare, for that matter. Those fields should be changed to be more welcoming to men ;-)
"[...] while women will work less hard to take care of [children]". I think you mean she'll do less work in the labor market, and maybe (but maybe not) that being a parent and homemaker is not hard work; let me know if I misunderstood you.
In reply, I'll say this: I'd much rather sit my fat ass in my comfy chair and type code all day, than I would want to turn my house into a home; I've tried my hand at the latter, and I don't find it to my liking, nor particularly relaxing. I don't know how hard parenting is, but boy is it *honorable* work; from what I recall, breastfeeding does absolute miracles for the development of baby brains, and lots of positive contact with the parents is necessary to build a secure bond which promotes mental health. If a woman would do that for my kids in exchange for me having a relaxing time *typing*, I'd almost feel like I was short-changing her.
Also, the cultural marxists want to hound women into the work force, while decrying that "women's work", what I just described, is being devalued. Who's doing the devaluing? Not me, that's for sure. I respect the women who do that well and take pride in it!
Jonas Kölker Oh yeah home-making is such a hard job, I mean it takes you like an hour or two to choose the colors? Let's look in the Ikea catalogue to see the ideas of others because thinking is hard! Hey honey, can you move the table a couple of inches to the left? No to the left oh you can't do anything right! I know, I'll get an agent to make my home for me, like that I will have exactly what I want!
Sure, motherhood is such an honorable job and such a hard work, let's shove the kid at school, in a daycare or with a nanny I don't want to miss my favorite show! It's such a hard work that apparently it's okay for a mother to kill her child, she was in so much stress you see! It's such a hard work that mothers think they can do a better job without the father around, but she can't do it without his money let's keep him as a slave but far away from his kids because apparently breastfeeding is enough to make him obsolete: thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/
psychoh13 I seem to have accidentally struck a sore spot. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to anger or offend, yet apparently I did.
Mothers killing their children is horrible. Mothers throwing the father (singular, please, ladies!) of her child(ren) out of her life is bad. Evading the duty of being a good parent by institutionalizing the kids and pretending to yourself that this absolves you of your responsibilities is terrible. And none of that is hard work. I think we're in complete agreement there.
Maybe I was less clear than I should have been: I'm emphatically not saying that all stay-at-home parents (including in particular the female ones) do good work. What I praised (or meant to praise) was the people who do *good* work; the parents (mothers in particular, but what I said applies equally to fathers) who are sources of support for their children, who counsel them through life's difficulties, who foster healthy self-esteem, who give words of advice, who whet their children's appetite for life and learning, and so on. (I'm a bit tired ATM, so perhaps my Good Parenting list of ingredients is spotty.)
I hope this helps. In either case, have a nice day :-)
Wow. You hate wives, mothers, and women.
@@arawilson you have taken his words and twisted them to form a conclusion that is (hopefully) not true. what of what he said makes you think that he hates women/mothers/wives?
The medical field is slowly becoming female dominated but they still don't fill the majority of the highly paid specialties. When I ask my female colleagues, some of them repeat the line that sciences are sexist, yet they are in an M.D. program and have the same opportunity to fill those specialties. Most of them choose not to, but fail to understand that they had a choice. It's a terrible bias that even some professionals repeat.
Over here in the east, women don't seem to have that problem. Heck, our Internal Medicine department boasts a female cardiologist as the Department Head and she's a good lecturer to boot and intensely knowledgeable in her field plus she's married and has kids. The pediatrics boasts multitudes of women as consultants and the outgoing department head (male, mind you) is giving the reigns to his female subordinate. It has always been about our choices in where we want to go and not about this invasive rhetoric that people outside of our field push as truth.
There are departments in my country that have female leaders, but the majority of the sub specialties are majorly male. I think it has a lot to do with choices each individual makes. Also it is important to note that some females marry inside their professional fields which leads to them having a reasonably good income, eliminating the need to study further.
@@DiogenesofSinope True. I'm asian and in my campus there were 80 med studs, 56 of them were females and only 24 of us were males. 14 out of 24 have become residents and only 7 out of 56 females continue their educations. Most of them chose to stay as GPs, perifer doctors or even become full time housewifes. Even the most briliant woman in my campus chose to become a full time houswife, her husband is pretty rich though.
European energy giant EDF currently have a billboard campaign featuring one of their female scientists, above her picture it says at my school girls were taught they couldn't do science. When this was questioned they first said that as there were no quotation marks in the text it didn't matter that it wasn't true then they said that that was how she felt so it was okay to say. The writer of the article reporting this rightly said that he may feel he's an egg, but it doesn't mean that he is one. 1st world middle class white women are the least discriminated women on the planet but their brand of feminism always seems to focus on the "oppression" they face rather than working towards improving the lives of genuinely oppressed women.
***** At least the Taliban allow males to go to school. but I take your point that there is no place where men live like kings whereas women are downtrodden and in rags.
***** Video games ARE sexist, Pong for example encourages violence against women its rectangles are phallic in nature and as the great prophet Anita said "women are the ball". You obviously have a lot to learn.
***** go to www.hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk for the story Sexism, or a load of hot air from EDF?
How long is it since British schools dared to tell girls they couldn’t study science? Yet all this week, the French-owned energy giant EDF has been plastering unpopular newspapers with advertisements featuring huge pictures of a woman called Niki Rousseau. She appears above the words (in block capitals): My old school taught me that girls don’t do science.
Really? I’m still looking for fellow pupils of Ms Rousseau at that school, Leiston High in Suffolk, in the early 1980s. But EDF eventually admitted to me that Ms Rousseau herself studied Biology at GCE O-level. This is surely very odd if they ‘taught’ her that ‘girls don’t do science’.
EDF blustered that the claim (which has Ms Rousseau’s stern face above it and her name beneath it) isn’t actually in quote marks. So what? What other conclusion could any normal person draw from this display, than that these were her words?
In the end they fell back on saying (over and over again): ‘It’s how she felt.’ Well, she may well have felt this. I might feel that I am a poached egg and start demanding toast to sit on. But if I am not one, my feelings don’t alter the facts.
One of the nastiest habits of modern Leftism is that it constantly pretends that things are worse than they are, and then uses this exaggeration to demand yet more positive discrimination. I think this is wicked, myself, and plan to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.
It is disappointing that both the study authors and the Factual Feminist felt compelled to assert that female under-performance in elite maths is a myth, or is culturally determined. There is ample evidence to suggest otherwise. Greater male trait variance is the norm, and male performance in elite maths is no exception. The push to give females better role models and greater access to the sciences is already dominating education from kindergarten on. This social engineering project is doomed to fail in its goal of closing these achievement gaps between the sexes, and it will do much harm to the men and boys it will inevitably handicap in the name of social justice and equality.
"...a normal distribution falls off according to the negative exponential of the square of the distance from the mean. That means that even when there is only a small difference in the means of two distributions, the more extreme a score, the greater the disparity there will be in the two kinds of individuals having such a score. That is, the ratios get more extreme as you go farther out along the tail. If we hold a magnifying glass to the tail of the distribution, we see that even though the distributions overlap in the bulk of the curves, when you get out to the extremes the difference between the two curves gets larger and larger.
For example, it's obvious that distributions of height for men and women overlap: it's not the case that all men are taller than all women. But while at five foot ten there are thirty men for every woman, at six feet there are two thousand men for every woman. Now, sex differences in cognition tend not to be so extreme, but the statistical phenomenon is the same.
A second important corollary is that tail ratios are affected by differences in variance. And biologists since Darwin have noted that for many traits and many species, males are the more variable gender. So even in cases where the mean for women and the mean for men are the same, the fact that men are more variable implies that the proportion of men would be higher at one tail, and also higher at the other. As it's sometimes summarized: more prodigies, more idiots."
~ Steven Pinker
THE SCIENCE OF GENDER AND SCIENCE
edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html
You can find alot of studies on Google scholar about this sort of thing, needless to say, no one really dares talk about it. As Christina Hoff Sommers pointed out "its politically radioactive".
Irrelevant. So long as the average woman is _good enough_ at math to hold these occupations, such is sufficient. There is no need to be a genius at math in order to realize a career as an engineer, mathematician or scientist. It does appear that the average woman is good enough at math to hold these careers. The only question remaining, for themselves and their peers, is whether they will _press themselves enough_ to do that.
Magnesium
"So long as the average woman is good enough at math to hold these occupations"
She isn't, and neither is the average man.
"There is no need to be a genius at math in order to realize a career as an engineer, mathematician..."
Perhaps you don't need to be a genius, but you do need to be at least a couple of SD above average and at that point in the talent distribution men start to seriously outnumber women.
I at least agree with one thing: pushing females into math intensive fields is definitely not absent. When I was in highschool, there was a "Women in Technology" club, but wasn't any sort of club for males.
My opinion: There is always exactly as many people of any gender/color/whatever in any field as there should be. There's fewer women in STEM, and that's not a problem. If it is, no one has given decent proof that it is. If women don't want to go into STEM, or video game development, or oil rigs, or on the frontline in wars... Who are you to try forcing them into those fields? It's all about likes and dislikes. Women won't go into science if they don't really have an interest in it, after all. The ones that do go into science and that's that. This screaming about "sexism" when there isn't proof of said "sexism" is helping no one.
To all the women complaining there aren't enough women in STEM... are YOU in STEM? If you aren't, you're part of the "problem"... or maybe you're doing it right because you just don't have interest in science and are instead doing something that does interest you. Or should we start complaining that there aren't enough male nurses?
With advert revenue and its ease of use to setup online many bloggers and unethical biased "journalists" have taken it upon themselves to publish any old rubbish with the hopes of sensationalism, to create click bait to feed their own talentless existences.
They've taken upon Video Games, STEM and other fields of work while spouting debunked myths to provoke the reader, we are in an age were the media does not want to inform, it wants to enflame with its use of ill logic and dishonesty.
I'd go as far to say its a "Patriarchy Paradox" inwhich they ultimately prevail if they are allowed to say this nonsense, if you tell people enough that if they study STEM subjects they will be subjected to sexist workplaces inevitably this could cause us to have less women in work in STEM jobs, thus making them have data to infer "WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO SEXISM! LOOK AT THE NUMBERS OF WOMEN IN STEM DROP!" its a kind of vicious circle.
With games at the minute developers are actively being pushed away from making Female characters because its like a tactical nuke for the media to rip apart, this means the "Patriarchy Paradox" will create itself as women decrease as main characters which the media will pick up on. Damned if you, damned if you don't.
I think there is proof that it is a problem....especially when tackling female specific issues....when you have a bunch of male scientists making tampons and IUDs and birth control for women then there is a problem....and many studies have illustrated the the more diverse a work force the more creative the outcome...as the sciences get more and more diverse we will see better more creative science.....I mean veganism is a predominantly female movement which I think is the future of many sciences....including my field...so I'm excited to see when it is more and more incorporated
Monica “I think there is proof that it is a problem”...cite an example. You say there is proof, where? Are you suggesting that male scientists are incapable of creating solutions for the female anatomy simply because they are male? That’s an inherently sexist claim. “Several studies have citied that the more diverse the workforce, the more creative the outcome” . Again, please cite these studies. Being upset about something is not any form of proof that it’s sexist. You say that veganism is primarily a female based movement. Again, please cite any evidence for that claim. Further, how is it the future of many sciences? You’re lack of evidence for the positions you hold nullifies your arguments. Citing opinion only does not qualify for a counterpoint. It just illustrates your lack of research into an issue which you find offensive to you. I’d suggest finding some credible research to back up your arguments in the future. Otherwise, you’re simply shouting nonsense into the void.
This lady looks stoned. I'm ok with that.
I'm more than okay with that. : )
Most people know about the placebo effect, less people know about the essentially equivalent and opposite nocebo effect. That is, believing something to be wrong with you can actually cause the manifestations of those symptoms due to the negative psychology. Why not an analogue here, very negative positions on male bias could actually lead to a nocebo effect where women (or men) that believe this to be true actually experience the negativity to the point where low satisfaction is given or no attempt to even join the stem fields.
That would be particularly damning when reinforced by a narrative and confirmation bias, as much of this is being fed to people at a very young age, you know how religious people see God in everything, I'm sure that sort of thinking would play a part too.
It's well known that Darren Brown's mind tricks work, and the Indian rope trick functions, mostly in suggestion and mass belief, group psychology is a very powerful driver in human behaviour.
EXCELLENT point.
Albert B Interestingly enough one interesting example is faith healing which doesn't actually have zero effect on the patient, on the contrary it has a measurable *negative* effect (i.e praying for someone actually can make it worse if they know about it) due to the nocebo effect.
I'm definitely familiar with the nocebo effect as I have lived a life of snarky pessimism until I learned that most of my own thoughts are creating the negativity I'm supposed to despise so much.
Pray for me. :)
I think the Factual Feminist needs its own channel.
There were three young ladies in my Discrete Mathematics class (which was also taught by a woman). All three of them told me that the reason they originally didn't want to be involved in the sciences is because they didn't want to be around a bunch of guys all the time. They wanted to be in classes and workplaces where there were lots of other women.
For those who are curious, here's a link to a PDF of the study: www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/Women-Academic-Science.pdf?.it&
I love how the narrative has the assumption baked into it that men's choices are the "right" ones, and that women are making the "wrong" choices, that women need to be taught to choose the same way a man does, and the fields need to be altered to encourage women making the "correct"/male choices.
>>Wants women in sciences.
>> Tells women workplace hostile.
>> Modern-day feminism
Thank you AEI, yet again, for putting FACTS before feelings.
*TWO THUMBS WAY UP!*
I'm glad you know your audience, directly sending viewers to an article debunking the entire video, knowing full well that none of them can read and come here only to validate their predetermined views.
My father is a retired geology university professor He would say that woman aren't "drawn" to his field and he puts on value judgement. I never felt any hostility in the sciences in university. I worked and studied in many science departments I am a building official (building engineer-working with the trades), on very rare occasions do I feel any gender bias. I've had one boss that was very sexist. He caused me a lot of stress. I figured there would always be a knuckle dragger here or there, so I pressed on. Now I'm at the top of my field. My fear is that we won't have strong women because everyone seems so "sensitive". Universities are not hostile to women in sciences. I am baffled by them thinking so. If someone doesn't like you, it might not be because you're a woman.
The reason for _"everyone seems so sensitive"_ and your being _"baffled by them thinking so"_ is simple. *Feminist propaganda*. If you were unaware of this then you have been involved in your work and not following the politics.
Why not watch a quick video in which Barbara Kay will tell you what is going on. Her comments are old but just as relevant today, perhaps more so. See the video, *Barbara Kay on institutional feminism and misandry*.
Being a geologist, I feel one reason why women (and men too) aren't especially attracted to the field is that geology is never taken as seriously as the other sciences. Oh you like hitting rocks, why don't you use your smart science brain to be a doctor? And also, not everyone can be a scientist, just like not everyone can be a counselor or attorney, yet we don't see an uproar over that.
did the study check into the scholastic performance of women in the calculus series? While my calc I class had about 50% women, Calc II had 3 of 15 and calc III 1 of 5
This is great. I love the idea of having scientific articles being reviewed by a video. And this is a great article.
I actually fucking love this channel and each one of you women that aren't caught up in the matrix
Why is that any disparity for good things with women in the less(not the best phrasing) is seen as sexism?
Someone please explain why the girl at 2:23 was writing backwards on a glass pane.
Other than that, great video!
It looks like a link to an educational show in the top left corner. They are probably writing like that so it's visible for the viewers.
My sister left a great job in stem at Biobank. They were excited to have her, and she still feels guilty for leaving Biobank and taking a much lower paying job to teach, but she was bored to death in
right, it's almost as if children are a big responsibility that cuts in to time.
I'm confused about the 2 graphs at 1:28. For the first one, Sally Satel says the rate is the same for men and women, and yet when I look at the math-intensive fields, two of them (physical science and economics) seem to already show a significant difference... (I looked at the original paper and an asterisk means there's a significant difference). And then for the second one she says that this time women have a lower rate than men, but the only change I see is the addition of geoscience to the "significant difference" category. So, only a minor change. In short, what I see in the images doesn't seem to illustrate what she says. Did I miss something or misunderstand that part of the video? (if so, I wouldn't mind someone explaining).
its that what i see in my work as well. i work in biology (microbiology) both the doctor and the leader of the microbiology are female. they are well exepted and liked.
but also my doc. does spend ways less time in the lab as she has 3 children. the others suport her as well as she suports them. its overall a very friendly enviroment and everyone just used first names for each other.
This was brilliant! Studies like these are refreshing and so are the videos! It gives me a little piece of mind that not the whole world has lost its ability to step outside of the group think phenomena and there are still even those willing to challenged them intellectually!
This very well may be my favorite one done by them. Very interesting, and shows the path forward.
Some women may be held back by those pretending to champion them.
It's so funny how when you apply even the most moderate amount of logic to Feminist & SJW arguments the crumble.. it's amazing they still have followers..
As for why I think they might be "underrepresented": Maybe, they just don't want to be in those fields? I don't understand why all job fields but be 100% accurately "represented". let people do what they want.
I am a math/physics educator. I love these factual studies into STEM.
I'm an engineering student and my non-engineering female student friends doesn't like math at all.
Am I crazy or is there a slight reverb on her audio in this video?
Thanks for this video, i was first going to rip it to shreds by you calling it truth but i like how you presented opposing points of view within this discussion
I absolutely do not believe that preferences can or should be shaped. Preferences are usually based on desire and nothing should get in the way of that. I had always wanted to become a scientist, and here I am 4 degrees later and still happy about that decision. Most of the girls I knew that wanted to be "scientists" only said so, most of them went into english, psychology or law. Most female scientists I know aren't as good as male scientists in spite of having had an equal or better education. It's a waste of time to try to influence children into fields in which they are neither interested nor capable. It's a waste of time. Let people do what they're good at, but more importantly, what they want to do.
THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. THANK HEAVENS FOR THIS!
I think this study is very accurate and seemingly well conducted. I say this because I've always been fantastic at science and great in math as well, but when I heard assholes claiming that girls are inferior to guys in those subjects, my confidence plummeted and I became very insecure. This claim actually launched me further into my clinical depression, which prevents me from having the drive to do much of anything for that matter. Confidence is very important in intellectual fields and if one abandons their intuition and confidence, they will likely falter or be dissuaded from continuing their studies in those fields.
Every intelligent person knows that girls are just as capable as guys in science, but self confidence is a major hindrance, as are children.
More girls need to be trained in self-confidence so they can flourish in these high stakes exams.
Besides, my sister is a CPA and she's never spoken about harassment for her gender in this mathematical field.
The fundamental lesson to be learned from this study is that the deficit of females in these fields of study is not due to in capability or genetics, but is rather an issue regarding lack of confidence. All students should learn how to master their confidence-retaining skills and be exposed to a wide variety of studies at a very young age.
Besides many brilliant women choosing to go into STEM, another reason why there will be an increase in women is because of quotas.
And there is sexism in STEM fields, since many women are chosen due to their gender.
I think the worst part of critics of the Factual Feminist is that they link it to the American Enterprise Institute, as if that detracts from it. They point at how it's conservative and thus biased.
Besides that it's a fallacy to assume this, if fact checking and basic logic is conservative then I guess I am one too.
A liberal who looks down on conservatives is no better than a conservative that does the same.
I mean it is clearly biased.....but everything is
'Bout time this got cleared up. Thanks for killing off another "feminist" argument.
I am taking an optional advanced math class, and there ARE more boys than girls in it, but the gap is only 5 people.
You almost lost me when you said "social sciences" with a straight face.
i can't wait for the autotune rebuttal that makes no sense
So we have Based mom (Christina), Based Sister (Caroline), now we have Based Aunt!
It's nice to look at some actual data and see that what's actually happening is far more positive than how the media often likes to portray it. It's somewhat ironic to me that despite all this evidence that women who dedicate their careers to science are just as happy as their male counter parts, we keep getting told that the sciences as a whole offer only a hostile work place to women.
My experience running software development teams and running a software business myself has been quite the opposite. We strive to have a healthy and positive environment for all our employees and make sure that their contributions are valued regardless of petty concerns like race or gender. The idea that a bunch of unassuming engineers are running around like beer fueled frat-boys and commenting, "Nice code... for a girl!" at every opportunity is ridiculous. If anything, out of all STEM related fields, computer science and engineering has long been one of the most progressive and open professions available. It's one that highly values results and problem solving and intelligence, traits that everyone can lay claim to.
So, a message to Christina...
How about that TED talk I asked about on your Five Feminist Myths video? :)
If there is sexism we can call out here is the social norms that women are the ones that should cares for children , which is a social issue that needs to be examined separately with more details but great videos , facts are OP
I can't believe someone so old can be this cute.
Well it's because it's easy to play the blame game than taking responsibility for your own actions and handling your own sh!t.
Today, in the USA, in 2019, how many women are in college and university when compared to numbers of men??? Is there a ratio? Why are we even measuring such things if we are all human beings? Are statistical demographic results more important than technical proficiency of the individual???
Well, the way science is presented in school makes it look boring for everyone. Good, regular doses of Sagan, Feynman, Neil 'n' Nye help. Personal experience.
Out of curiosity, why did you keep saying "promoted to assistant professor"? In almost every field, one starts as an assistant and promotion is to associate professor.
Good video!
Choice of courses : Meaning the good-sounding but zero-prospect gender studies and lesbian dance theory majors are what's preventing young women from having prosperous careers? Gosh, who knew?
Here's a question I've been curious about for a while. Why aren't there as many men in female dominated fields like teaching? Is it just that men aren't interested, or is there some actual sexism going on?
Their nonparticipation is solely a result of personal life choices.
Is there any research as to why men are under-represented in female-dominated fields? SHouldn't we be looking at equality of outcomes there as well? (rhetorical sarcasm).
In Scandinavian countries which is believe to be the most egalitarian societ(ies) in the Western world by many, the representation of women in STEM fields is even less than other Western countries. Women with more freedom to chose are choosing traditional careers (female dominated ones).
The reason that the women had higher satisfaction working in STEM has a lot to do with working around a lot of men. Everyone hates working with women, even other women.
What ??
What if there is ever a point where there are more women than men in the legal profession or in medicine or in teaching in the humanities? What will be done to make sure men have their fair shake in those fields?
It is always a good thing to hear the there is nearly no gender inequality - if there is even one. Lovely video
There will always be differences in the amount of women&men employed just down to pure interests and goals. Men and women prefer to follow different career paths but my own theory for the under representation for women in particular science fields is simply their experience studying those subjects. I reckon they're generally more likely to choose to study/finish and complete a subject if they have female colleagues. The age you start making career decisions and your priorities at this age (typically friends) influence your choices, i can understand why you may avoid a particular field if you fear you may not make friends while studying it. Im interested in just how much the pursuit of keeping friends or finding new ones impacts both men and women in their career choices
Speaking as a man i know for a fact many men avoid pursing certain subjects because they are predominately dominated by women. On the other hand some men pick them for that very reason.
Dear factual Feminist, this is an article a student in my year posted in our University Facebook group, I tried my best to debunk it but most of the people didn´t understand the version of feminism this article relates to and kept on arguing from ignorance (as it is a problem mostly in the US and not where I come from). But please make your own deduction about the studies cited and how they were used to construct the argument: www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/12/09/gender_bias_in_student_evaluations_professors_of_online_courses_who_present.html?wpsrc=fol_tw
Great job, Based Auntie! I enjoyed the video, and I think you have really cool hair.
What if there are always more men interested in and available to teach the sciences than women? What if there are never enough women interested in teaching the sciences no matter what to create an equal outcome? Will it still be "sexist" and the fault of men? Are there no biological differences between men an women that might account for different career decisions?
I don't get those critics. Here we have people who do thorough research and present them with data of what they are fighting to achieve, only to rebuke them that it's flawed and that it doesn't represent women working in "hostile environments", whatever they mean by that because they sure as hell aren't going to give a straight answer.
Biology differences between men and women are almost certainly the largest factor for the difference in STEM field education and jobs, women simply aren't interested in these kind of systems, they tend to prefer interaction with people, helping those in need, they're over represented in fields like nursing, care work for the sick or elderly, looking after children, etc.
The idea that this is some kind of sexism is completely unfounded, proponents of this position offer no evidence for it.
So this woman is actually pretty rad, I like the video, thanks for not being a femiNAZI and actually stating FACTS. Now, im here to make mention that my college has a "Women in STEM" program, and I just thought "Huh...maybe its just another womens movement to get more women into the field? Good on them", I dont like to assume that EVERY gender related movement is malicious and SJW, ya know? But who knows man?
It seems to me that females now have the greater power of choice in both work and home life. When a married woman has children, it is likely to be mainly her choice whether to return full-time to work, work part-time, or remain at home as principal child carer. Her husband would generally be expected to work harder to bring-in the bacon to support the wife and kids (hence boosting pay beyond their singly colleagues). Certainly there is very little discrimination against women in the workplace nowadays, only that which feminists invent and perpetuate to justify their victim status. Stoney x
I'm not sure what it is, but this woman is really cute to me for some reason.
screwed124816 She's calm, reasonable, analyzes the situation and facts and *gasp* actually makes good arguments and conclusions, unlike *some* "feminists".
*cough* *cough* Anita Sarkessian *cough* *cough*
I love this woman
Wait? This ISN'T feminazi feminism? Oh, maybe I will watch this.
This is all very lovely. So when are academics going to start doing more important studies - for example the current rape culture crisis that we are in?
Think a few things may have been missed on this one - please do point it out if I am the one who missed it :P.
1) On men with children performing best: of course, just having the wife stay at home doesn't explain why they would outperform men without children. A basic answer of course is that men with children will likely try bringing in the few extra bucks to facilitate their spouse staying at home ("work full*-time*, work *full*-time or *work* full-time").
2) I'd assume the study covered it, but one would expect that among higher age groups, men tend to do better (having more experience) while more women drop out (old sexist paradigm, and women taking time off after childbirth). And age of course increases the odds of having children.
3) Seems little attention was given to the obvious: perhaps women are just not as interested in these fields, naturally. If women are more people-oriented and men more object-oriented, that's what one would expect. It would also mean that those women who are interested (those on the "male" end of the spectrum) would perform just as well as men. But it would mean fewer will enter the field, and odds are most of the top would be males - top science no doubt is like top athletics in that respect.
Again, might just be I missed these bits :).
sorsocksfake 1. There are many guesses on why, but the most common is that men with kids put in longer hours then men without kids, the reason is likely to because men who work full time with kids feel it is their duty to bring home money for their family, so they are willing to work not just the 40 hours done by there non-kid having male counter parts but 45 or eve 50+ hours a week. This sacrifice would not be worth while for a single man or a man without kids, but this is how men sacrifice for their kids. 2. This would be why the study looked at with and without kids. Women who never have kids do just as well through out there entire lives, but once they have kids, they are, on average always behind their male counter part.
Just curious. Why does she have black spots where glasses would sit? It doesn't look comfortable.
I'm so glad that this video was made. There is an amazing thing that often goes unsaid or ignored in many of these studies. What about what the people want to do? What if we put every man and every women who wanted to be an engineer into that field. Does anyone think it would just be 50/50? If it isn't, what then? Now do that for all the fields in every job in the world. There are jobs that men and women might not want to do. There can be many reasons for that but I think a prime one is that we like to work where we feel we are making a difference and not just money. What do engineers do? A great many things in many disciplines but on a broad scale they build things big and small. I'm sure that results in great satisfaction when you look at your finished plan or product. But you can build as a plumber, a carpenter, iron worker, welder and so on. These fields also design and create things. Are we pushing for 50/50 here as well. I find it funny that the answer is no. That we have lots of satisfied women in many science fields shows there is little problem if any at all. This is the same argument for women in congress. We have about 20%, not 1% so the answer does not lie in a barrier to entry. It lies more in the desire to do that work.
A popular media feminist is Anita Sarkeesian. She likes to complain about sexism in video games. Many if not all of her videos have several refutation videos but lets progress as if they didn't. She wants more women in game design and probably more but I'll work with this one point. How about this? Give up being a media critic and go into game design. No? Why not? Oh you don't want to design games but have a strong desire to put other people in there.
Stem fields are no different. All children are introduced to science in their first 12 grades. I've had male and female teachers and respected both. It makes no sense that a college course changes their mind. Actually they chose the course so they already had a liking for science. I find all of these studies a waste of time for brilliant minds but if it shuts up the whiners who think things are unfair when all you have to do is work for it I suppose we can suffer through it.
Fair warning, thats my opinion, not backed up by data other than what I personally see
I think men in general are usually more tailoring and pursuing money and women are more likely to pursue using other decision mechanism, for example some women want to do XYZ or such. I think that ability to provide is much more important for men decision mechanisms, and these fields are more likely to yield more profitable opportunities.
Just an opinion, could be wrong.
I really don't see why STEM fields are specifically targeted by those questions... really.
I studied chemical engineering. In my school, the women/men ratio among students of my year was about 60/40. So when I hear about that accusation, I'm a bit confused. Of course, ratios are different in even more math-intensive fields. But I don't think there's any tangible and serious sexism at this level anyway. You might find here and there some examples of sexism, but nothing that happens to be chronic and systemic.
There were also many female professors in my school, and female students didn't have more difficulties than male students to find a job after school. Quite the opposite actually. They mostly prefer jobs in fields like cosmetics or biotechnologies, but some of them chose jobs in heavy industries too. Even so, it seems they often end up following the career of their partner without being especially forced to do so...
Really? Those are some crazy numbers that your school has. I'm kind of awed, actually. The engineering program where I live is predominantly male. They're fine with that, though; it means that the predominantly female nursing program has a group to party with.
Chemistry seems to appeal more to female students... maybe it's one reason (even if there's a huge difference between industrial chemistry and lab chemistry).
Maybe the fact it's a french engineering school can be a reason too. I don't know...
Anyways, I'm well aware these numbers keep being uncommon (again, especially in more math-intensive fields), but I think they show there's no real systemic obstacle for female students. When they really want to do something, they can do it.
McBibi
My school is more in tandem with the norm, in my year out all of the courses in the institute(it is an institute of engineering) we have less than 10 women, though most of them did decide to join chemistry and it is a trend that follows most years, so there might be a connection.
I think that society would benefit greatly if we all adopted the point of view mentioned in the video: there are some areas that would be fantastic points of research that we just don't have data for yet. Instead of certain feminists just blindly attributing the low male/female ratio in engineering to societal pressures that scare/force women into other fields, why not just ask those women? They even do the same thing with men: instead of asking men if songs like "Blurred Lines" encourage them to rape women, they just say that it does. How is that a healthy way to reach conclusions? All it does is encourage people speaking for others and senseless paranoia.
I'm running out of relative terms to call these awesome women. Christina Hoff Sommers is Based Mom. I call Caroline Kitchens Based Aunt. What am I supposed to call Sally Satel?
Well let's start with the fact that most women prefer to work with people, where as most men prefer to work with things.
Numbers don't lie.
I think you're good
It might be good for the professional woman to have someone to take care of home-life (as I did) but he will get screwed in family court when she casts him off. In this area, the biases are spectacular, and for men in the early 21st century, it is no different than for women in the early 20th Century.
My daughter got academic awards in both Math and Arts. I tell her the fields like Medicine are more lucrative, interesting, and flexible. If you have a choice, math and engineering are simply not that desirable. The only reason the numbers about these fields exist, and are paraded, is because these are the only place where women are not at clear advantage. Women who have a choice, (wisely) do not want them.
The prestigious work like Medicine is overwhelmingly dominated by women, but there is no Factual Masculinist, to do the publicity, and no public to be outraged by the inequity.
Based aunt ftw
Why do women with children don't publish as much? It's obvious: "Mom! MOM! MOM!!!!! MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!"
Feminist critics say that women are dissuaded from entering STEM fields due to societal biases. Really? Couldn't it be that men and women, on average, have different career interests as a result of their biology and psychology? Are women as interested in Petroleum Engineering as they apparently are in Nursing?
And why the focus on academic careers? Why are there so few female plumbers, cab drivers, chemical plant operators, firemen, sanitation workers, etc, etc, etc? Why don't certain feminists seem to care? Is it only prestige careers that they care about? They're OK with men continuing to do almost all of the low prestige jobs?
RE: ~3:00 Why are women more likely to choose a hard science career when their instructors are women?
I can't lie I saw a women say stay out of these fields because it's sexist and then she called them sexist for lack of women
I'm highly suspicious of the integrity of the study
25-40 is a big gap
Sounds more like they don't want to accept that many women choice their way of life perfectly fine without help from three waves of feminism.
Critics more like women worried about silly words like bossy and thinking that they don't have to work as much as men to make the same.
Women are expected to do housework and childcare AND have a career on top of that, while for a man, if he has children he can still dedicate almost all his time to a career because it is his wife that is expected to juggle both career and family responsibilities. Where's fairness in that?
The horrible facts are though that most women don’t want to go into STEM, and when given choices, most choose not to. Biology impacts psychology; psychology impacts behaviour and occupational choice.
BASED AUNT
If science were sexist, wouldn't it most likely prove itself to be not sexist?
My guess: Women choose to stay home after they have kids and men with kids generally work harder than men without kids (may have to do with maturity or the drive to provide for their family). I wonder if they'll start another bandwagon about how the system is unfair to men without kids.
Nah. Can't really spin that into outrage.
Your logic will be true if more proportion of women in only women university are studying more STEM courses
Female scientists are strongly encouraged at the chemical technologist level. And, they seem to hold a majority of the positions from what I have personally seen. In my line (chemistry) there is absolutely no discrimination against female candidates and in fact a possibly over represented cache of benefits available to them versus their male counterparts.
In short, in my personal experience girls rock it in the chem lab.