It is contested, I would say so, yes. There's two, I think, main arguments that are at odds with that example:

1. Argument one contends that men are more interested in things and women more interested in people due to a result of biological or innate differences, whether that be of the brain or something else.

2. Argument two contends that this difference is the result of gender-based socialization in which men are expected to be more interested in things and women more interested in people, and so the differences in the rates of STEM are a result of a problematic socialization and that a truly "equal" society wouldn't be to enforce a quota per say (although some feminists do advocate for quotas), but to dismantle the underlying system that socializes men and women in such disparate ways.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Apr 2 2018 07:38pm

there's another factor at play here: intelligence has a larger variation in men than in women.

on average, men and women have similar average IQs, but there are more male than female geniuses, just like there are more male than female retards. therefore, in fields where an outstanding IQ provides a measurable advantage or even is a prerequisite, like STEM academia or top engineering jobs, (literal) equal opportunity will lead to more than 50% of the top spots being taken by men - even if we assume that there are no differences in interest and dedication between the sexes.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 2 2018 08:20pm

is there any credible data supporting this narrative? tearing down society to support an idea without data seems very dangerous. The data would have to be overwhelming for this to be a reasonable approach

At some point this argument of muh patriarchy has to break down. Millennial women are the most independent, emancipated, liberated, outspoken women to this point in history. They've grown up in a world where they've been told they can do whatever they want and no one can ever dare tell them that's not the case, at least in much of the western world. As i go to my microeconomic theory class tomorrow and look around the room, i see one girl and about 20 guys. There's no great conspiracy here, not in schools nor in most places of employment. We can hypothesize why females choose the STEM fields less than their male counterparts but i think we need to move past this kneejerk reaction of automatically assuming that systemic oppression or inequality is at the root of this imbalance.

Data for what? That the socialization is the cause, or a heavy contributor, to the disparate rates in STEM? I don't know if such conclusive data exists, and interpret is as largely a compelling argument. To give an example, some studies (please don't ask me to cite them, because I'm super sick and lack the energy, so for the sake of funsies, just go with it plox) in the field of psycholinguistics found that the way that early childhood educators speak with children in their classroom differ between boy and girl students to a statistically significant level with respect to effort and failure especially in math and science. The one I'm remembering was about how teachers utilize aspirational language more often when speaking with boy students (You'll get it next time!, You'll do better if you keep studying!, etc.). Conversely, teachers utilized comforting language greater than average with girl students when they failed or stumbled (You did your best!; You're so good at English though!". This, many argue, translates to women aspiring to be in the field of STEM less throughout their lives.

Now, I ask for no cite plox because I don't want to look for it at the moment, but I think finding it is pretty irrelevant because it is, admittedly, a large claim such things either cause or help explain the differences in STEM fields. It's just one example though, and certainly conclusions are made by feminists that this is an example of the subversive gender-based socialization that pushed girls and women out of STEM, or results in them either not entering the field, or leaving the field, on a level greater than average compared to men.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Apr 2 2018 08:40pm

"so for the sake of funsies, just go with it plox"

LOL

Yeah, because I'm not referencing the study as a fact or as a valid study. If I were, I would cite it. Instead, I'm using it as an example that I know some feminists use to draw or reinforce their conclusions. I don't draw conclusions from it, but think it can be a compelling argument and that more data is needed.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Apr 2 2018 08:43pm

haha, didn't mean it like that. not meant to criticize your point just thought that part was funny

Many would argue that being more equal than before =/= necessarily mean being equal.

Personally, I think we need more data to make conclusions as a whole, and that the answer will likely be a combination of factors. I don't, at least at this point, think that innate biological differences explain the disparate STEM rates either (Not saying that this is what you're saying). I think that "more data is needed" probably applies to both arguments 1 and 2 I laid out earlier. In the meantime, this doesn't stop people from drawing or reinforcing conclusions and building entire movements around them.

You hurt my poor SJW feelings.

Whatever I have sucks majorly. My body has only two temperatures it keeps alternating between: the frozen tundra, and the flames of Hell.