TV01:

It may well factor, as will a number of other things, amongst which are; it better suits womens strengths, it is more family friendly and at the point of entry women are able to compete favourably against men

What are women's strengths? Which jobs are family friendly / unfriendly? Why are women able or not able to compete at the point of entry?

...and the best way to tackle a skills shortage would be to positively discriminate in favour of a group whose preferences typically lie elsewhere? As opposed to incentivising it for all - i.e. making the opportunity equal and attractive - in order to increase take-up??

Preferences can change over time, they are not fixed but flexible, which is great and convenient. What we are discussing here, however, is where these preferences come from. And I am still not sure whether it is nature or nurture or both.

Discriminating in favour of women to increase STEM take-up is bad for women and bad for STEM.


TV

I agree and who wouldn't? Who wants to discriminate in favor or against anyone though? I thought it was more about encouragement of girls and not discrimination against boys.

Stillfire:
TV01, I'm glad you are aware of the familial factors and the way women are 'nurtured' that 'hinders' our progress.

I'm sure there's an element of this, but; 1. It is almost certainly reducing, if not all but vestigial 2. nurture can negatively impact males as well.

Stillfire:
And yes we should at least be at 45% at the moment if women are socially brought up to prioritize traits like assertiveness, doggedness, not modesty. And yes I am making estimations not assertions , because for the fact that we are merely having a discussion, we can make hypothetical statements, and a scientist often puts her opinion and estimations in her discussion section of her scientific reports, tehehe. So no I'm not being 'ideological' but doing what scientists do, make hypothetical statements and then work towards proving it.

And I maintain that putting a figure on it suggests overtones of "social engineering" engendered by ideology. I have no problem with any level of representation - high or low - as long as it is merited, and on the basis of equal opportunity and open access for all.

Stillfire:
I chose 45% at the moment because men have always had the benefit of a head start. I'm not stupid to make foolhardy estimations of 60% at the moment.

The head start that men have is their heads in this case . Abeg easy on the social re-engineering 0! Otherwise men may be at risk....

Stillfire:
As of my lazy comment, as of the 1930s we start seeing women in physics, chemistry fields. So yes I think Western women have grown lazy over the years.

Not lazy, comfortable perhaps . Or just prone to different preferences and probably a wider array of options. Why would they not play to their strengths and seek to fulfill their desires?

Stillfire:
I have no worries though Nigerian women match them despite the incriminating factors we have in our country, both economic and sexist views that most of you here would wish women to aspire too. To think kitchen! But not under my watch. Tehehe

Why are you despising women that choose to be homemakers? Stop denying women choice ! And don't forget, womens choices will impact on the dynamic of their relationships with men - unless of course relatiosnhips with men are forgone - by choice !


TV

Mindfulness:


I am not confused, I am very clear.

Now when you compare what you have just quoted to what you said before, you will spot the huge difference that led to a false statement on your side.

All of the statements I have made here are very much in line with the findings of the study which is that there is a biological basis for the difference in choices. Huge difference and false statements? That's just the lure of pedantic thinking.

There are several findings and papers that in different ways suggest and support what me and other posters have being alluding to for months now which is that Men and Women are inherently different. This difference explains a lot of the issues and topics that are under focus today.

Mindfulness:
What are women's strengths? Which jobs are family friendly / unfriendly? Why are women able or not able to compete at the point of entry?

It's been noted repeatedly that the men are better suited to the requirements of TEM. Medicine has lots of branches that afford women the flexibility to combine work with family. Female Dr's can opt for peadiatrics as opposed to neurosurgery, or being a GP as opposed to an opthalmologist.

Being a GP for example means they can easily adopt P/T or flexible working arrangements. This - as I have already detailed and evidenced - is actually compromising healthcare delivery in the UK.

Firstly becuase most new Dr's are women, there are fewer entrants into things like neurosurgery (still tend to be male), and because they look for areas that are flexible, front-line services are compromised. Try getting a GP appointment in the UK today.

At the point of entry for medicine, soft skills, i.e.e bedside manner, articulacy etc. are emphasised as much, if not more than pure scientific ability. This favours women at that point - 18-20 - one reason why they secure more places. Contrast this to things more math, logic or modelling based, which is the emphasis in TEM. Men have the edge - even if they are nerdy/clumsy/inarticulate!

Mindfulness:
Preferences can change over time, they are not fixed but flexible, which is great and convenient. What we are discussing here, however, is where these preferences come from. And I am still not sure whether it is nature or nurture or both.

If you are cliaming nature has nothing to do with it - and can prove that - then you would be correct.

I am of the opinion that nurture, and all our social norms, constructs etc. have always been predicated to some degree on nature/biology - and it has worked more or less. If you would bring something different please prove it works. All efforts to deny nature have so far proved abortive !

Mindfulness:
I agree and who wouldn't? Who wants to discriminate in favor or against anyone though? I thought it was more about encouragement of girls and not discrimination against boys.

Encourage them against their will?


TV

ApexTitan:


All of the statements I have made here are very much in line with the findings of the study which is that there is a biological basis for the difference in choices. Huge difference and false statements? That's just the lure of pedantic thinking.

You call it pedantic, I call it precise. Your summary of the results has distorted the results. It is so simple.

There are several findings and papers that in different ways suggest and support what me and other posters have being alluding to for months now which is that Men and Women are inherently different. This difference explains a lot of the issues and topics that are under focus today.

I have not been arguing against it.

TV01:

It's been noted repeatedly that the men are better suited to the requirements of TEM.

Who noted it repeatedly? How are they better suited?

Medicine has lots of branches that afford women the flexibility to combine work with family. Female Dr's can opt for peadiatrics as opposed to neurosurgery, or being a GP as opposed to an opthalmologist.

How is pediatrics more family friendly or more flexible than neurosurgery? How is being a GP more flexible than being an ophthalmologist?

Being a GP for example means they can easily adopt P/T or flexible working arrangements. This - as I have already detailed and evidenced - is actually compromising healthcare delivery in the UK.

I don't see how you cannot adopt flexible working arrangements for ophthalmologists or neurosurgeons.

Firstly becuase most new Dr's are women, there are fewer entrants into things like neurosurgery (still tend to be male), and because they look for areas that are flexible, front-line services are compromised. Try getting a GP appointment in the UK today.

And the point is? Sorry, not getting it.

At the point of entry for medicine, soft skills, i.e.e bedside manner, articulacy etc. are emphasised as much, if not more than pure scientific ability. This favours women at that point - 18-20 - one reason why they secure more places. Contrast this to things more math, logic or modelling based, which is the emphasis in TEM. Men have the edge - even if they are nerdy/clumsy/inarticulate!

Are you saying that men are inherently better at Math?

If you are cliaming nature has nothing to do with it - and can prove that - then you would be correct.

Well, research shows that in some countries girls outperform boys regarding mathematical ability, so gender cannot be the determining factor, can it?

I am of the opinion that nurture, and all our social norms, constructs etc. have always been predicated to some degree on nature/biology - and it has worked more or less. If you would bring something different please prove it works. All efforts to deny nature have so far proved abortive !

I agree with you that in primitive societies biological differences such as physical strength created social norms, which have been extremely important and useful. I also agree that it has worked more or less. However, we no longer live in primitive societies, do we? We live in highly-developed and complex societies that require elaborate solutions to the problems we are facing. This does not mean that we must deny nature, on contrary, we must respect nature but I do not see any empirical, serious, scientific evidence that men's brains are better suited to do well at Math. And this argument, which is at best based on sentiments, forms the basis of so many opinions here, which are sentimental and not matter-of-fact.

What I appreciate about your contributions a lot is that you represent a counterbalance to the camp of those who neglect the fact that there are indeed MANY women who have a preference for domestic work. And this should be respected. This is true emancipation.

Encourage them against their will?

TV

If you encourage your daughter to be good at Math, Physics and Chemistry at school, do you do so on the premise that it is against her will?

Lilmax how far

5minsmadness:
Lilmax how far

i dey,na now you dey reach here?

Mindfulness is being careful not to take a definite stance so she adopts the querying approach.

Here, provide a reason why you think women in countries where gender equality is actively promoted are still shying away from STEM.

lilmax:
i dey,na now you dey reach here?

Lol, yes oh! Have been doing my best to avoid confrontational threads and chilling out in romance and sexuality section. In fact I for no reach here again after my first post if not for my "followed topics".

I dey page 5. You see wetin I dey see so?

Mindfulness:


Yes, your choice of words is a problem because it distorts the results of this study.

You said the following:

"Boys will tend to choose to play with toy cars and trucks whereas girls tend to play with dolls."

The study shows, HOWEVER, that ...

1. boys have a strong preference and that
2. girls are flexible and show greater variability.

This is very different from what you have said.

so true,shows his ignorance.i mean if one can say from the greater variability that therefore girls are suitable for all,then they will cry,lol but basically its all about change because the same methods they are using to say all their foolishness,whites were saying about blacks.. Its like a white person looking at our current condition in africa then arrogantly concluding this shows that blacks are not suited for civilisation.

ApexTitan:
OK this thread escalated to something else rather quickly.

That's nairaland for you You never know when things will get interesting.

5minsmadness:

Lol, yes oh! Have been doing my best to avoid confrontational threads and chilling out in romance and sexuality section. In fact I for no reach here again after my first post if not for my "followed topics".

I dey page 5. You see wetin I dey see so?

so clear ......

ApexTitan:
Mindfulness is being careful not to take a definite stance so she adopts the querying approach.

Exactly! I am very careful. I do not like to take stands without proper knowledge and based on sentiments in order to feel better about myself.

Here, provide a reason why you think women in countries where gender equality is actively promoted are still shying away from STEM.

I am trying to learn about the reasons here and elsewhere. The reasons you have provided are devoid of solid background knowledge and therefore not convincing. And you should know that a one-dimensional approach, that you have a strong preference for, is far from a proper depiction of the complexities of life.

doublex:
so true,shows his ignorance.i mean if one can say from the greater variability that therefore girls are suitable for all,then they will cry,lol but basically its all about change because the same methods they are using to say all their foolishness,whites were saying about blacks.. Its like a white person looking at our current condition in africa then arrogantly concluding this shows that blacks are not suited for civilisation.

I get your point but I would appreciate a friendlier tone.

bellong:
You got it wrong. The essence of encouraging women to be in STEM courses is to disabuse their minds about its gender stereotype.

In every university, check percentage of ladies in Engineering and science compared to administration and social sciences.

There were only 5 girls in my department in the university, 2 in civil engineering for my set, mechanical had only one ati bebe lo..

that strategy doesn't diasbuse anything. America has withnessed over 5 decades of intellectual and institutional feminism. They have also had quotas for women into those courses for some time now. It is important to note that 60 percent of university degrees in the STEMs o to women; yet, men dominate silicon valley!

I wonder why the world cannot just come to agree already that if given the freedom, there are ways men and women would behave.

Remember that men are also told they are not the best care givers. Do we have Obama settin up policies to encourage men into traditional women areas?

This whole thing is about power and notin more.

milychocs:

Exactly!
Thank you

the question is, are men actively encouraged to o into stem courses?

It is true that men tend to fill te stems, but inthe end, only tose who ave been truely inspired by nature and modern technology, end up becomin outstandin in the stems.

raumdeuter:


Some professions are more useful to society than others. Any nation that wants to grow must priotize STEM courses. All the countries that are superpowers are because they are the most scientifically advanced countries and they make SCIENTIFIC innovations. E.g Japan, China, US, Russia, germany etc and not Greece that is the birthplace of Philosophy History and literature

What benefit does having millions of people with PhD in Sociology, Philosophy, Human resources, Romance languages to the society?

many women always flee from Sciences and see it as a Man's field because of the rigors involved with sciences. if women who are increasingly getting more opportunities in education are running away from the major builder of the society i.e STEM courses then the country would have a huge problem in the future

i disagree with you. Fact is, society has never been built by the majority and that's ow things are! Only the minority provide ideas on which the world is built.

We don't need all women to et into stems for te society to et better. Just as we don't need all men to achieve te same feat. Most men in te stems, like women, end up doin thhe same routine that was taught tem in school. Only a few end up chanin te world with revolutionary theories and laws.

Zukerberg had men and women in his class, but he was the only one who is now shaping culture.

Mindfulness:


I said definitely.
I thought you don't like "unnecessary" questions.

In that case, welcome back carefreewannabe...

There's a reason I asked that unnecessary question.

crackhaus:

In that case, welcome back carefreewannabe...

There's a reason I asked that unnecessary question.

You are funny. I think I like you.

Just remember that I also have my reasons to ask "unnecessary" questions.

Have a blessed weekend. I am leaving now. See you later maybe.

@mindfulness, i tink we should ive up on this issue of no emperical proof to show that men are better at anything more than women. The truth is, there are countless evidence unless we choose to ignore it just to make ourselves feel better. The reason why it can be a bit difficult for some people to accept this fact is because the stems, which require analytical skills, are what's toping te world today and are the biest earners. This whole thin is all about power.

Well. Below is a link for you to read. If you disagree with te method they used to come about this findin, well, it is in your court to present your objection and show that they are superior to the arguement given herein. I agree we shouldn't harp so much on this so as not to discourage ladies, but c'mon, we cannot deny nature.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently

Mindfulness:


You are funny. I think I like you.

Just remember that I also have my reasons to ask "unnecessary" questions.

Have a blessed weekend. I am leaving now. See you later maybe.

Have a blessed weekend too...

@mindfulness

thank god you said "some countries". I can offer an explanation to it.

I believe the countries you find that trend are countries whose tools in test and measurement of goals of educational objective in the sciences are geared towards recall rather than a thourough analysis of scientific phenomenon. I believe the link i gave you also confirms that women are better at memory than guys.

Miller and Osborne (1998), in identifying the most important factor the assessment in sciences should seek to measure, noted that rather than emphasize on the recall of specific details of facts, assessment in sciences should give greater weight to the assessment of a holistic understanding of major scientific ideas and critical understandin of science and science reasoning.

Many countries' tools used to measure educational outcome in the sciences are geared towards recall. Tis could explain that trend was reported.

I will tell you about my experience in school, wich i just finished.

When we were being taught Quantum Mechanics in 300L, non of us students could follow up on what the teacher was teachin us. When we were writing the exam, my coursemate, a lady who was leadin us in class at the time, was busy filling up her answer sheet with the right answers to the questions. I was just siting there only able to solve one question out of four. I looked into her work and saw she was just downloading. I had the option of copying from her, but i refused, even though i knew that i was carryin over the course.
When the the result came out, she passed and i carried over the course as expected.

When i was oing to write the course again with my juniors, i asked if she could help put me through. She said she just doesn't know anything in the course! So te question is, how did they (those who passed it) pass the course in the first place? The answer lies in the tool used in the measuing of our behavioural outcome in Quantum Mechanics. The questions set for us were exact same lenghty proving that was given to us durin the course of the semester. We were suppose to cram and download wen the time comes. Since ladies are good at memorizing, like the article in the guardian told us, they are more likely to perform better in cases like this. But if you know the sciences very well, you will agree with me as well as with Osborne and Miller that the ability to recall is almost of no use, rather, a thorough understanding of phenomenon and acquiring scientific reasoning is what's needed.

Today, i can tell you more about Quantum Mechanics that almost all of my classmates can tell you about it. Including the lady.

To let you be sure that i did not just come up with this, you can check my profile and see the threads i have ever opened here on NL and you will see where i came here to discuss quantum mechanics. I was disappointed that the thread did not attract many people. You can also check the date i started the thread to be sure.

crackhaus:
In that case, welcome back carefreewannabe...
There's a reason I asked that unnecessary question.

they both have the same style of arguement.

Mindfulness:


Exactly! I am very careful. I do not like to take stands without proper knowledge and based on sentiments in order to feel better about myself.



I am trying to learn about the reasons here and elsewhere. The reasons you have provided are devoid of solid background knowledge and therefore not convincing. And you should know that a one-dimensional approach, that you have a strong preference for, is far from a proper depiction of the complexities of life.

Your questions already betray your position, you are just afraid to lay it down lest it be called out. Questioning allows you the chance to mount an offensive while maintaining an escape route. Interesting debate jujitsu there

Ah so this situation is confounding. For a couple of decades now the ideology had been presented that girls and boys are essentially the same and that the concept of gender differences was a social construct. Many policies and outlooks were then promulgated that failed to take into account the inherent strengths and dispositions of the different sexes, instead they approached the genders as an androgynous unit - the push for gender parity in STEM being one of them. Except that now the results are different from what the champions of these ideologies envisioned, women are not taking up roles in STEM like the men are despite all the efforts by activists and the likes.

It is interesting watching these people try to overrule nature's dictates.

doublex:
@ FrancisTony and Mindfullness,imagine the ignorance and arrogance from some of thse people!! BIOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF LIFE AND LIVING ORGANISMS,INCLUDING THEIR STRUCTURE,FUNCTION,GROWTH,EVOLUTION,DISTRIBUTION AND TAXONOMY.Biology itself has many subjects or areas of study:aerobiology,anatomy,histology,botany,cell biology,building biology,biotechnology,cognitive biology,biomedical research,bio physics,ebryology and many more .Due to biology and medicine studies the human lifestyle,quality and quantity has greatly improved. Case in point:vaccines,childbirth methods and surgeries are one of the biggest advancements due to biology and medicine studies.YET SOME FOOLS HERE ARE SAYING ITS LESS IMPORTANT/BORING THAN ENGINEERING.....a fool is a person who lacks good sense/judgement

you are a consummate rëtard!
vaccines, childbirth & reh reh reh - our forefathers handled the challenges even better before they were introduced to science. a big chunk of the so called medical practitioners are now drifting back to the traditional methods to find cure.

what exactly is very difficult in medicine that can match engineering. engineering put a man on the moon. engineering put planes in the sky. nerds in britain are controlling drones heading towards the middle east to wreck havoc. even you can now sit down in the dirty environment you were raised & video-call your boyfriend across the atlantic....what do you think is responsible for all that?

....please one of the fools who was saying theses studies are easy:GO MAKE THE CURE FOR HIV AIDS AND CANCER!!!show us how easy it all is

oh shut it already....
if engineers(with their analytical minds) have been hired in that medical field, they would have found the cure to every disease by now - you are actually making my point.

engineering has answered every question it has been asked. look around you and see how better humans are - compare that to 2000BC. the next time you open your gob senselessly in a discourse you have no clue about, i would smack that tobacco-stained teeth out of your mouth and make myself a congolese necklace.

TV01

SEGREGATED SPECIALTIES:
 Women are only 29% of all physicians, yet they are
overrepresented in traditionally lower-paying
specialties. Pediatrics is the only specialty in which
women are the majority (55%).3, 7
 Women have the lowest representation in surgery.
In 2005, women were less than 6% of each
orthopedic, thoracic, urological and neurological
surgeons.5

http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinMedicalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf

Baically even in the field of medicine and Surgery, the harder part are left for the men while the easier part are female dominated

I know some would say which are the harder part. Well in the US post med school redicency to be a Neuero surgeon is 7yrs while for family medicine is 3yrs

The average required USMLE scores for Neuerosurgery is way higher than most specialties

TV01:

I'm sure there's an element of this, but; 1. It is almost certainly reducing, if not all but vestigial 2. nurture can negatively impact males as well.


And I maintain that putting a figure on it suggests overtones of "social engineering" engendered by ideology. I have no problem with any level of representation - high or low - as long as it is merited, and on the basis of equal opportunity and open access for all.


The head start that men have is their heads in this case . Abeg easy on the social re-engineering 0! Otherwise men may be at risk....


Not lazy, comfortable perhaps . Or just prone to different preferences and probably a wider array of options. Why would they not play to their strengths and seek to fulfill their desires?


Why are you despising women that choose to be homemakers? Stop denying women choice ! And don't forget, womens choices will impact on the dynamic of their relationships with men - unless of course relatiosnhips with men are forgone - by choice !


TV

Social engineering? TV01 stop slacking. It is within my rights to make postulations, that is how theories and laws come into place.
We can now go ahead and do our experiments as 'scientists' lmao on a sample of Nigerian girls based on my hypothesis that if we don't limit Nigerian girls to aspire to kitchen life , the drop out rate will decrease and we would have an increase in the number of nigerian girls in STEM.

And no I am not despising the girls that aspire to kitchen life, I am concerned about the girls who have it in them but drop out due to some retrogressive ways of thinking.

ApexTitan:


Women have grown lazy over the years? Kai, don't let those Scandinavian women, who in-spite of the strong push by their governments to enter STEM fields have refused to budge, hear you o.

It's wrong to even start with the premise that this under representation is wrong. This is just what it is. Simple.

Yeah I said it. They are lazy. Nigerian female rates despite our hindrances roughly match up with theirs. They had better go back to the drawing board.

craziebone:


they both have the same style of arguement.

True that.

Stillfire:


Yeah I said it. They are lazy. Nigerian female rates despite our hindrances roughly match up with theirs. They had better go back to the drawing board.

. You think this shaming tactic will work on women like you? Good luck achieving results, we are watching.

You know there have been several attempts to steer girls into these fields and yet they haven't produced the desired result. Schools are redesigning and repackaging course programs (I read how a college in the US has fancy sounding names for its beginner programs in computer science - 'Gold' Program for those with no experience in the field and 'Black' Program for those with experience - all in a bid to lure the girls ). Mentoring and promotion of role models in the industry have been increased, add to this the loud campaigns in the media and yet it appears women continue to make choices that are confounding - they just aren't into STEM the way boys are. Their priorities are different and I say this is not a bad thing! One can almost sense the exasperation that activists feel, see this comment:

"No one country or region is ticking off all the boxes, and some are falling dismally short. This is a tremendous waste of resources. We are wasting resources educating women without following through, and we are missing out on the enormous potential that women represent." -Sophia Huyer, Founding executive director of Women in Global Science & Technology

Sure there have been occasional outliers and exceptions, some women have indeed pursued committed careers and made remarkable contributions in STEM but the overall majority seem to want to do other things. Boys still dominate these fields and will continue to do so for as long as there are boys in this world

ApexTitan:

Your questions already betray your position, you are just afraid to lay it down lest it be called out.

What is my position? Teach me, please.

Questioning allows you the chance to mount an offensive while maintaining an escape route.

Questions help me learn and I LOVE IT.

Interesting debate jujitsu there.

The pleasure is all mine.

Ah so this situation is confounding. For a couple of decades now the ideology had been presented that girls and boys are essentially the same and that the concept of gender differences was a social construct. Many policies and outlooks were then promulgated that failed to take into account the inherent strengths and dispositions of the different sexes, instead they approached the genders as an androgynous unit - the push for gender parity in STEM being one of them. Except that now the results are different from what the champions of these ideologies envisioned, women are not taking up roles in STEM like the men are despite all the efforts by activists and the likes.

Are you saying that all policies aiming at narrowing down the gap between boys and girls, in education, failed? There was no progress?

It is interesting watching these people try to overrule nature's dictates.

Which ones EXACTLY?