And now I'm pretty aware that you're pretty aware that I am, indeed, pretty aware.

And all of that is pretty, pretty, pretty good.

Also, inb4brainwashing

Are you calling me pretty?

I wasn't, but I would.

I agree that women should be able to join STEM fields where we differ is I think they should compete on a merit-based system rather than being favored over people better qualified simply because of their gender.

Here's a video that I strongly agree with.

Thank you for having the AEI logo so prominent to help us save time.

A merit-based system is fine, idealistically, but I think it's too early to operate under such a system given the social context of the United States. It's also not to say that women need to be favored over men, especially men who're more qualified. Rather, I would say there's a gender expectation that certain fields are either for women (early education), and not for women (engineering).

My ideal solution, is to have a society in which such gender roles and expectations are completely disavowed and there is no gender-related pressure to either pursue or not pursue certain majors, and that demographics will just fall naturally wherever from then on. This of course would have to start earlier than just college, and is about a much larger socialization process, which speaks to how we raise girls and boys differently, and how we subsequently expect different things from them and how we treat them differently. These are the factors that I believe form the "differing interests" that that video touches on but doesn't offer a proposed explanation for why those differences exist.

So it's not that I'm against a merit-based system, it's just that I think operating under one would be premature given our social context.

I'm not really sure how treating people based off their gender rather than their ability would help society defeat gender roles? I would think naturally over time with a fair system more women would make the decision, if they prefer, to join nuclear engineering over something like gender studies. If over time women do not make that choice in a fair system, why encourage them to do something they don't want? A system that prefers a woman simply because she's a woman would seem to only create hostility.

Is there an arbitrary number you can justly say "there, now its equal" when it comes to women in STEM or men in gender studies?

This post was edited by majorblood on Jun 29 2016 10:36pm

It's just more communist micromanagement from the plebs who cry "equality".

Equality comes when everyone accepts things for what they are and has no intention to force others to do anything. The exact opposite of what we have feminists fighting for.

The TILT has come and it's time to remove the cancer from our bodies.
Sounds hypocritical, but sometimes a small amount of self-defense style force is needed to stop far greater problems in the future.

I'm saying the opposite of the bolded. Currently, people are treated differently because of their gender, and this translates to disparities in "areas of interest", which manifests in disparities of industry/degrees. I'm saying that people shouldn't be treated differently because of their gender, largely that they shouldn't be socialized differently in a way that either encourages or discourages them to enter certain areas of interest, industries and/or majors.

Underlined: I agree with the first portion of that, and that's what I'm saying and advocating for, that essentially if we had a society devoid of these gender expectations, roles and stereotypes that we would see not only an increase in the number of women in STEM fields, but also an increase in the number of men in human/social fields. Your portion where you frame your "if" question was something I already mentioned though, when I said:



I'm totally fine with having things play out naturally, and this includes the hypothetical scenario in which women overwhelmingly decide not to enter STEM fields in any significant way. However, that is purely conditional, and based on the presumption that we've moved beyond society's current gender expectation, roles and stereotypes.

To your last question, there is definitely not a magic number, and it's impossible to say for certain at this point what'll grant us the ability to say "there, now it's equal". However, this is a well-understood core position of those in favor of affirmative action, and this understanding was reflected in Justice Kennedy's opinion in the recent Supreme Court case in which he said, in part, the following regarding UT's policy:



This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jun 29 2016 10:56pm