The Push For Quotas For Women In Science 896
mlimber writes "The NYTimes has a story about how Congress has quietly begun to press for an equal number of women in the hard sciences and engineering under Title IX, which is best known for mandating numerical equality for boys' and girls' sports for institutions that accept federal funding. The problem is, the article says, it is not merely that women face discrimination from male colleagues, though that is often true, or that they are discouraged from pursuing these fields. Rather, women with aptitude in these areas often simply have other interests and so pursue their education and careers in other fields like law, education, or biology. Opponents of this plan, including many women in scientific fields, say implementing sex-based quotas will actually be detrimental because it will communicate that the women can't compete on even terms with men and will be 'devastating' to the quality of science 'if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women's level of interest.'"
How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Law, psychology, education, journalism, etc. are dominated by women. Should we expect to see male quotas there?
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
THAT'S IT!!! No more white people allowed to become architects until we fix these numbers!
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about racial equality? Is that one just not cool anymore?
What about LGBT equality, I demand an EQUAL number of Lesbians, an equal number of Queers, an equal number of Bi-Sexuals and an EQUAL number of trannys to be a requirement of labs which accept govt. funding!! What about straight people? To hell with them!!
In other news I actually DO have an African-American friend who applied for an African American scholarship who was later turned down because he's not black... Oh, what, you say that African-American is actually a racist term too, but don't tell the bleeding hearts...
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe when we start having a racially-equal number of crackwhores, violent criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, layabouts, and social misfits; then maybe we can start applying it to other things.
I'm not for political correctness (only fairness). If racial profiling, or gender profiling, or sexual profiling, or any other type of profiling generates positive results, then why aren't we doing it?
In other words -- if girls don't want to study science them please, for the love of science, don't try to make them. I sincerely believe that statistically, men are better at science than women. There are enough objectively identifiable differences between the sexes to justify such a statement. (The same could be said for races, too.)
The key thing to remember, though is that, being good at science doesn't have, or doesn't need to have any particular value or "worth" associated with it. I'm not good at sports, and I don't think that makes me less of a person.
(In case you're wondering, I'm a gay man who considers himself a very liberal Socialist on the political spectrum.)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
Would you consider becoming jewish?
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree when you said "if girls don't want to study science them [sic] please, for the love of science, don't try to make them. I sincerely believe that statistically, men are better at science than women. There are enough objectively identifiable differences between the sexes to justify such a statement."
However, here is the catch: a particular women may very well be better at <pick scientific field here> even though statistically speaking, women (as a group) tend not to better at <same scientific field> than men (as a group). Plumbing alone is not sufficient to determine whether a man or a woman should be admitted to a degree program, offered a job, etc. If the best candidate for the opportunity is a woman, select her. If it's a man, select him. If it's a person (either sex) of African, American Native, Polynesian Islander, Caucasian, etc., select that person without regard for skin color, sex, orientation, etc.
This is why quotas are a bad idea. With either quotas or with profiling, you are discriminating on the basis of irrelevant evidence (skin color, sex, etc.).
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Quotas enforce a distinction based on race, gender or whatever and the desired end state is no distinctions based on these irrelevant things. Now there are positive ways that you can address the balance, like funding programs to encourage and assist under-represented groups to enter such areas. This preserves choice but recognises that there are barriers to these groups which need to be overcome.
In reference to the GP, whilst it may be arguable that there are natural inclinations that lead women to generally be less inclined toward the sciences, there are three important points that impact on this. The first is that even if in the general case women have a lower potential ability in a field (emphasising 'if' and 'general' especially), very few careers really demand a persons maximum potential. Just because a man may be more likely to win the noble prize for maths, doesn't mean either gender isn't going to make an excellent maths teacher. Indeed, given other general traits that women tend to have over men, they may prove better maths teachers as a whole. Note that this is only if we allow the GP's belief in gender-divisions, which is not proved to the best of my knowledge.
The second important point is that even if such tendencies do exist, they are exaggerated by society and this can be countered. To illustrate, if women were less inclined toward maths than men, to the hypothetical degree of 40% less likely to be interested in it, does that mean you get 40% less girls choosing maths? No - because girl X may look at what everyone else is choosing and say to herself "well my friends are choosing English and I'm going to be surrounded by boys with hardly any girls." Bang - discincentive! This is a bad thing if able people are being dissuaded from studying something due to other factors. My Computer Science course had about a hundred people in the year and around five of them were girls. Do you think a girl notices that? Yep - you can be sure of it. Plenty of girls wouldn't let that stop them, others would. So if there's a means to counter a social discincentive to study, perhaps through some sort of marketing, publicity or assistance scheme, then that reduces an innefficiency in our society.
The third important point, when it comes to taking account of the any possible general distinctions in ability, across whatever distinction you draw, is that the difference in ability would have to be huge before it became efficient to discriminate based on that difference. Not just because potential caps on ability are irrelevant in a society where few reach their potential and dedication and consistency are the qualities most needed by employers, but because even if there was a difference in actual ability to the level of - absurd hypothetical - 75% of women candidates being less able than men, it still wouldn't be efficient on the part of an employer to make gender a distinguishing factor between candidates - you'd lose more than you gained. Therefore if there are means of countering any cultural tendency to make such distinctions, they should be found and considered. It's established that negative stereotypes form more easily than positive ones and that negative stereotypes do not require a statistically accurate basis. Therefore to be efficient, a society should actively counter negative stereotypes where needed.
Now much of the above allowed the GP's belief that there was a provable difference in ability between genders, which is still open to debate. Disentangling any biological differences from cultural ones is extremely difficult and I have doubts that it has been shown that there are such real differences. It's all too easy to prove what you are looking for. The GP also slipped in a line about there being provable racial differences which I definitely have never seen good evidence for. All the above arguments would be relevant if there were, however.
Our societies have a desperate need for educated pe
Re:you forgot on thing (Score:5, Funny)
Well, no, that's just you being stupid. The grandparent is a self-described liberal, so he probably has all sorts of incorrect opinions, but most of what he stated in his post is not unreasonable.
By the way, there's plenty of valid reasons to post anonymously. Abject cowardice isn't one of them. Hey, the gay liberal was braver than you!
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still cool, it's just that some people have started to figure out that if you get the job because of a quota, you will never really be equal. Of course you will also never really be equal if during the first decade of your career when you are supposed to be proving yourself and being a workhorse for you industry you are prone to taking one or more legally protected one year hiatuses. I have no problems with working mothers, but they need to stop pretending that give as much to their careers as career driven men do. I'm fine with the fact that family life makes it impossible for a woman to do 50 and 60 hour weeks, but I'm not fine when she then demands "equal consideration" when it's time for raises and promotions. There are women out there who are ever bit as dedicated to their careers as the most career driven men, but they are as rare as stay at home fathers.
How far do we take this? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, so we have gender equality in science. You've raised racial equality. What about sexual orientation too?
The way I see it, we now need the industry's population to be enforced to:
12.5% - Gay, white, male
12.5% - Gay, white, female
12.5% - Gay, non-white, male
12.5% - Gay, non-white, female
12.5% - Straight, white, male
12.5% - Straight, white, female
12.5% - Straight, non-white, male
12.5% - Straight, non-white, female
But what if we get age equality in there too? Do we now need 6.25% segments with old and young of gay/straight, black/white, male/female? What about transgendered people? Do they get a slice of the pie? I'd also want to include people from the US versus not from the US. Oh, and don't forget people with Down's Syndrome.
At this rate, there'd only be one guy sitting in the computer science department with 99 vacancies going. The problem is, legally they can't discriminate when posting job vacancies, so how will the quota be filled? Who will find that gay Chinese hermaphrodite needed to fill a 1%?
Re:How far do we take this? (Score:4, Funny)
Who will find that gay Chinese hermaphrodite needed to fill a 1%?
Slashdot. Just post something about a hermpahoditic gay person from China and someone will come along and promptly inform you that that is what they are and call you an insensitive clod.
Re:How far do we take this? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall being, by far, a minority in Computer Science as a caucasian. All my classes at a state school were 2/3 or so Asian.
I'm in college and now and then discussions about racial equality and other kinds of affirmative action happen. I think the whole concept is silly, since the only actual solution for lack of qualification by any given ethnicity is, IMHO, to actually provide better basic education to its members, so that they reach a good level and can compete in equal conditions with the others.
Frequently, however, many of my colleagues don't get the reasoning, so I switch to a "shocking analogy" that makes the rational argument understandable. Basically, I play with the racial terms without changing the concepts. And one typical example I use is this one, about Asians.
So, I take the typical phrase, say, "There must be quotas so that there are proportionally to the population as many blacks in college as whites, as it isn't just that they're underrepresented. If this means so many whites that would be able to enter college don't, so be it.", and with the most straight face I can manage to make I turn it into: "True, you are right. But notice that this will cause whites to become underrepresented, since we'll have a disproportionate amount of Asians taking the place of whites. So, I propose we include a second quota system so that there are proportionally to the population as many whites in college as Asians. If this means so many Asians that would be able to enter college don't, so be it."
My colleagues look at me with utter horror, as if I were some nut follower of David Duke, what I most surely am not. Then I say: "See why this is silly? I used your exact phrase, only switching the subjects."
Then they stop, think, and, what proves all isn't lost, some of them turn and reply: "Yeah, there's some truth in what you said."
Affirmative action isn't the solution, it's just a palliative. Better basic education is the solution.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with your logic here is that "white" people don't have barriers to entry and advancement in the fields you're talking about. That's the whole point you and so many others are missing; it's not the relative proportions of ethnicities or the genders, it's the barriers.
Well, keep in mind I'm talking about more specifically about the academic field, where the barrier is usually one of academic merit alone. That's why I talked about better basic education. Provided blacks, whites, Latins etc. get in front of the college gate with roughly the same level of knowledge and roughly the same grades, they'll usually have the same chances of getting through it, into college proper. Thus, affirmative action in this field masks the actual problem: that they aren't getting at that point equally.
As for barriers in other fields, sure, they exist, but from studying the history of the Asian immigration to my country (Brazil), as well as some of its US counterpart, it seems to me those are grossly exaggerated. You see, in both countries the Japanese immigrants and their descendants, for example, were considered 3rd class citizens, were despised as inferior, were held in concentration camps during World War II (all the while losing most if not all their possessions), were considered in their entirety "our enemies", etc. And yet, they managed to overcome all these difficulties by such an extreme level that in many fields colleges and businessmen crave for them as employees.
Not to mention how this applied to Jews, who were even more despised, persecuted, deprived of their hard earned possessions, socially barred etc., and still managed to overcome all of these obstacles without any special governmental aid.
Same goes for the Irish that emigrated to USA, same goes for the Chinese, same goes for Hindus, and so on and so forth.
Thus, if logic, common sense, reversal rhetorics, and abundant historical examples appear all to show that affirmative action isn't needed, what is left in support of it? As hard as I try, I really cannot see anything clearly showing there's a need for it.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Funny)
one of my co-workers went back to school. He says the majority of the CS grad program is indian.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Funny)
She must be drinking Powerthirst. [youtube.com] Sounds like you might become a prolific uncle :)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, I would love to see more XX-chromosome carrying members of our society in my physics classes. But it has to be their choice and not at the expense of more qualified people. And for the record, the two best physics professors I've lacked a penis.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
And for the record ... I've lacked a penis.
Do you tell this to everybody? I'm assuming you are not a woman because most women don't feel that they need to inform everyone that they do not have certain organs that the species in general possesses.
Have you considered that perhaps you've just lost it? Feel around for a while and you might find it again. Good luck in your search!
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, so let's get this straight. You had an addadicktome after having a lopitoffofme ...
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you'll never see male quotas (a good thing) because that would be favourable to men (a bad thing these days)
In Sweden, there are male quotas as well. As a result, a couple of hundred women that were denied entry to vet school are suing the country's government for discrimnation.
Needless to say, men can not sue.
Feminism is not about gender equality, it's gender war, and they are winning.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Funny)
That's interesting. I certainly have talked to a few women feminists who seem to hate men (well, dislike them very much). In fact, this one woman who spoke at the Feminist Forum at my school got married to a man, but he was the only man in the whole ceremony. Every person at the wedding, besides the groom, was female, including the priest. Now, I don't know about you, but that can't be natural and certainly isn't equality-minded. I'm sure that quite a few of the people who are motivated enough to constantly lobby for legislation like this are probably misguided like that woman was--bent the opposite way that a redneck is. Perhaps some of these uber-feminists (post-feminists?) really do hate men, and no doubt for some of them it IS a gender war. But, for most people this is still about equality.
I tend to be pretty equality-minded myself, but I'm also aware that there are REAL biological differences between men and women, and that reflects itself in the social system. See, it's not just social conditioning that determines behavior: biology partly determines social behavior! Perhaps care-taking occupational fields are more common for women because that also happens to be a major genetic imperative for women, even more so than men (yes, breasts are for more than just sexual objects, in fact in some cultures they are not considered more sexual objects than the neck or the navel). How come animal behavior is considered almost entirely genetically determined by PC people cannot admit that human behavior may be even somewhat determined by genes?
(I was a member of the feminist forum, even though I'm a guy... Hey, I was single!)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Less opportunities for men.
They'd like to pretend it will be a positive influence and more opportunity for women. But tell that to the men's swimming team, the men's golf team, the men's track team, and the men's wrestling team... and good luck finding them, because those programs were all cut. After all, they had to "create" more opportunities for women.
Here's my suggestion: how about we just actually give them the same opportunities, and if they don't take them... fine. Remove the male/female checkboxes from the applications. There's no need to create restrictions/quotas.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Risk, it comes down to risk. If we REALLY want to get more women into the sciences we need the make the risks of the profession lower.
By and large research has shown that the maxim that men and women are equally mentally competent is true. There are a few indications that maybe within specific skills men and women differ a little between populations, but by and large if there is a man who can do a job competently then there is a woman who can too.
However, women are statistically more risk averse. And science (especially the hard sciences) is an incredibly risky discipline to undertake as a profession. Better to be a lawyer or a doctor. And women agree with this assessment. Many countries now train more women in these professions than men.
The real problem with academia isn't discrimination. I've come across no discrimination working as a scientist. The problem isn't how hard academia is. Women are just as tough as men. The problem is that academia is playing roulette with your career, not to mention damn hard. 9 till 9 for pay nowhere near what you could earn in the private sector, no job security until you are in your mid to late 30s if you are lucky and get on a tenure track.
If we want to have more women in academia then the way academics are treated needs to change. Competent (but not brilliant) academics shouldn't fall by the wayside, and brilliant ones should be treated like rock stars.
This applies doubly so in the hard sciences where concrete metrics of achievement increase the perceived risk of those who are less confident.
We are failing young women and it doesn't just hurt them. While men and women are by and large similar, there are biological differences and exceptional individuals who think are certain way are more likely to be female than male. The value of someone who can think outside the box should not be underestimated, and up until now the box is largely drawn out by testosterone junkies. By engineering a system which dissuades women we not only lose out on a significant number of competent individuals undertaking research (a catastrophe in and of itself), but we lose out on those outliers whose drastically different modes of thought might spur important breakthroughs.
We NEED more women in the hard sciences. But quotas will just guarantee mediocrity at best, and at worst they we do more harm than good. Fixing the culture of academia will cost money. Money to pay for job security. Money to pay for an image change. Money to ensure the hard sciences are more cooperative and social. Money to pay higher wages.
But why fix a problem when you can pretend to on the cheap?
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Insightful)
> The value of someone who can think outside the box should not be underestimated, and up until now the box is largely drawn out by testosterone junkies.
So you suggest replacing people who are not afraid of taking risks by people who are adverse to risk, in the hope that the latter will think (more) out of the box while the former won't?
> By engineering a system which dissuades women
Yes obviously the system is the way it is because a woman-hater engineered it that way.
> we not only lose out on a significant number of competent individuals undertaking research (a
catastrophe in and of itself)
A shame, but if working in science means these people won't be working in another field, that's a catastrophe for that other field, right? It's no use talking about what could have been, and 'potential' losses.
> but we lose out on those outliers whose drastically different modes of thought might spur important breakthroughs.
Ah, our new drastical different risk-adverse overlords. Science has been fine for the past 100 years with a very low number of females, and it will be fine for another 100 years without changing this.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for more women in science (I'm doing comp sci and my year has about 50 guys and 1 girl), but I disagree with your arguments.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget about parenting. Thanks to most Fathers a pushed away from having as strong relationships with their children as mothers are by being made to feel incompetent as a parent. [about.com] Of course this is just accepted and even flaunted in our culture these days, we went from having TV shows about "Father Knows Best" to having every sitcom dad being a likable but incompetent bumbler who is always saved from his parental ineptitude by the always correct super mom. Imagine the public outcry there were a movie released that took the treatment that "Kindergarten Cop" or "Three Men and a Baby" gave to men's ability to be parents and applied it to women's ability to be scientists.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Informative)
While not quotas per se, as a male it is possible to be a subject to affirmative action. The lack of male elementary school teachers is of such grave concern to some people that it is a natural consequence. It is a grave concern because about 1 in 5 elementary school teachers are male, and there are worries that the lack of male role models is disengaging young boys from the education system. That being said, inspite of action through school boards and professional bodies, men often fail to find work at the lower grades. Parents and principals keep them out.
That being said, it is the exception rather than the rule and I have seen feminists argue agressively against it because men have much better opportunities in society and don't deserve a hand up in the parts of society that they have been forced out of due to active discrimination. I wonder if they realise that more qualified men in education means more space for qualified women in other fields.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
Currently any woman can get(or give) a-head simply by batting an eyelash to the boss while her male peers toil long hours unnoticed.
Mandatory female quotas would be a godsend -- they'd have to compete not only against ugly fat guys, but against themselves! It'd be a most entertaining fight for the hottest, most attention-gettingest queen of them all. The males would win either way as they could heed the Middle East exit strategy that never was(that is, to stand back and let the others kill each other).
Endless, entertaining gossip and ever-shrinking outfits would load a volatile powder keg whose explosion would culminate in a sweaty break-room battle with girl-on-girl action, strategically torn clothing, perhaps some spare jello from the fridge, and only one victor - the men!
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think you've ever actually had a conversation with a real female human.
PROTIP: Real women don't actually behave like girls in porn, anime, or action flicks.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was in college, we had one girl in the class who was, objectively speaking, gorgeous. She had a spectacular body, amazing face, and she always dressed to show everything off. She would lean wayyy over when she was talking to guys, and she knew exactly what she was making us see. However, she would get SO MAD if she actually caught you looking at her, and she'd wrap her coat around her in a huff and get all pissed that she was being "treated as an object".
She was extremely smart, and she got very good grades in a very hard course.
I think she was just trying to confuse everyone around her, because I still don't know what the hell she was doing. I understand that she continued this behavior right on out of college and into the workplace.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heaven forbid one human animal admire the shape of another human animal.
So disrespectful, and all.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Interesting)
Psst - if you're a guy and you feel like talking after sex, you're either not doing it right, or not long enough (but I repeat myself).
http://scienceline.org/2006/09/25/ask-wenner-sex/ [scienceline.org]
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
This was modded TROLL?
This just in: ./ mods are apparently virgins AND gay.
Smart chicks are definitely a win all-around, and anyone who says differently loves throbbing cocks.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Interesting)
New physicians and lawyers are now predominantly women. Not only are these fields lucrative, but there's a lot of people practicing in them (that is, there are far more openings than for physicists or mathematicians).
I know in the state of Maine, being the liberal hole it is.... it PAYS (it meaning we) for single mothers(see harlots) to go to college. They pay NOTHING, receive a stipend to live on, food stamps, rent, utilities paid, and oh yeah, if they have an issue with their car the state will pickup the bill. Oh did I mention the state also pays for daycare?
Oh, I also forgot, they don't need to pass. One of my friends was dating one of these single mother system users... she skipped class, dumped her kid at daycare and spent the day having sex with him. What a gem she was.
Now in a state like Maine (highest taxes in the country) it takes a LOT of effort and cash(since white men don't qualify for anything in aide if their parents make 30g's a year) for men to get through college to begin with.
In the state of Maine one out of three people is on some form of state assistance. Oh course most men don't qualify(need kids or an injury). So to me it seems that the MEN are being crushed by the system and are being forced to pay for these irresponsible women(who some got pregnant I'm sure).
It's like communism, the state takes from the working and dumps all of their income into the lazy.
SO yeah, more women in Maine are in college and more women graduate with degrees. Not all of them are bad, some girls just made a mistake and are capitalizing on the system, BUT the system is FORCING men out of school because they just can't afford it(since they're the only ones who pay).
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lazy? Having raised teenagers as a single dad I can say with certainty that single parents are anything but lazy, particularly those with small children who also study (as a friend of my daughter is doing here in Australia).
Good parenting is difficult. Becoming a biological parent is not.
As for government support for single parents, if they enforced the payment of reasonable child-support from deadbeat non-custodial parents it would be enough in most cases, but exactly how does one extract money from an unemployed alcoholic ex-spouse?
You're kidding right? If a woman chooses to have sex with a loser, and get pregnant by them, then she's got to take some responsibility. Anyone other than a loser will pay and pay and pay and have no say in how the money is spent on their child. As for custody, all a woman has to do is suggest some sort of impropriety and the courts will happily take away custody too.
The 'problems for white men' (of wich I am the middle aged variety) stem from the (needlessly) high cost of a collage education in the US, it has nothing to do with a bunch of single mums trying to make the best out of a bad situation.
To be blunt if you let some loser stick your dick in you, you've made your bed. Getting the father to take part of the responsibility should also mean he gets some of the reward - time with the child, say in how the money's spent.
. I wouldn't wish it on you to find yourself in dire need of welfare because of someone else's irresposibility, but I would love it if people with your prudish, penny-pinching attitude would STFU until you to have walked a mile down that road.
Male or female, close your legs, or find reliable birth control, and you never have to have kids you don't want.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever notice that men tend to pursue money and jobs that will make them money so that they can attract women?
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone reliable actually cites that statistic, they give you a proper statistic -- comparisons between large groups of similar people going into similar jobs. Women do still make less in a fair comparison, but it's not as bad as if you bias the statistic by averaging everyone regardless of what job they're going into.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:5, Interesting)
The causes of the apparent pay gap are discussed here. [reason.com]
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Interesting)
MIT did a very careful study of pay and resource equity internally among faculty and discovered that they had a very measurable bias.
They then acknowledged it publicly and made a serious effort to correct it.
Re:How about the reverse quotas? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is true. As someone who is currently working to change my sex, I have first hand experience.
I have to say, however, that I like both astrophysics and stuffed animals. So such things aren't mutually exclusive.
Quotas are stupid. Take your daughters to a planetarium.
It's all geeks idea (Score:5, Funny)
men and women have different interests (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this so terrible to admit? It's obvious to everyone, yet all these PC jerks want to deny it.
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this so terrible to admit? It's obvious to everyone, yet all these PC jerks want to deny it.
Trouble is, you are confusing the end result with the root cause.
What these "PC jerks" believe is that women and men are socially conditioned to have different interests -- in other words, it just ain't natural. The concern is that the social conditioning is detrimental. That stereotypical "women's interests" are less valued and thus less rewarding than stereotypical "men's interests."
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, why is that so hard to admit?
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:4, Interesting)
I will grant that sexism is still quite apparently rampant in the corporate world, but not for everyone. I have done my share of interviewing and hiring (programmers) and have hired several women and passed on many others - just the same with men. It wasn't for quotas, it was for finding the right candidate for the job.
I think it all boils down to the new generations of parents instilling in their children the moral value of mutual respect; then a new generation of people, men or women, black or white, will be able to pursue their interests without having to deal with discrimination, subtle or no.
It is really hard to train someone out of being a sexist or a bigot; forcing them to hire under a quota will not force them to change their resentful attitude towards that person in the work place. How often have you seen a co-worker hit a glass ceiling on the corporate ladder all because someone above had it out for them?
Legislation like this, I think, breeds resentment, not viable solutions; "don't ask, don't tell" for the U.S. armed forces was a good example of that. People should have the right to be pricks if they want; the rest of us have the right to disassociate ourselves with them if we want.
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Insightful)
for a start, no one is proposing women should be kept out of these jobs. what they are in fact proposing is that sexual discrimination against men is ok. if it's a cultural "weakness" in america that causes women to avoid science, then spend money getting them interested in highschool and even earlier. don't deny anyone based on gender, it's wrong no matter what spin you try put on it.
Boys need the help, not woman (Score:4, Informative)
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Informative)
"does Title IX block men from sports so they can fill those same slots with whatever women they can come up with?"
To some degree it does. If a school has a disproportionate number of men's sports then it's not uncommon for them to eliminate those programs to get the numbers in line with IX requirements. The men's swim team was disbanded at my alma mater for this reason.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
And spare me this silly "society makes the genders different" nonsense. There are innate differences between the sexes! Go to a fourth grader's birthday party and see. The boys are raising hell and the girls are sitting around talking. Give a little boy a doll, he burns it or rips off the head. Give a little girl a firetruck, she names it and puts it to bed.
Why do think that anecdotal behavior of children who exist in the current system of social conditioning somehow proves that social conditioning does not exist? When in a large group together, all the boys do one thing and all the girls do another thing, sure seems like a strong argument for the existence of social conditioning - that girl who wants to run around and raise hell is shamed into behaving like a good little girl and that boy who wants tuck his firetruck into bed is laughed at.
If what you claimed were true, then there would be few to no scientific studies showing otherwise. At best you've got large minority of studies that show there are innate differences in a minority of areas, but math and science are rarely the areas.
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Interesting)
"men and women hold different interests because there is gender-based social conditioning."
So what, it's true, The issue here is that gender based enrolment quotas aren't the answer.
Ever hear "Ladies drink free" or "No cover charge for ladies" or "every night is ladies night" these are all ploys to keep meat market clubs from turning into sausage fests. And the sciences are generally a sausage fest. I've never heard of a bouncer saying "Dude you can't go in there, there aren't enough women, you will gave to wait until more show up."
Want more women in the hard sciences, look to the night clubs for your answer. "ladies get math tuition free" Try that a few semesters, and you will see it will still be a sausage fest, but you might get a few women interested enough to stick with it.
Not fair you might say, well at least an incentive program hasn't told any paying customers that too many cocks already applied.
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Insightful)
That stereotypical "women's interests" are less valued and thus less rewarding than stereotypical "men's interests."
Personally I always thought of it as the other way around. Culture didn't force women to have less valuable interests, but rather it took interests that women already had and devalued them socially. So now you have a bunch of people running around and freaking out trying to force all of society into a "superior" masculine role.
In a male dominated society, of course you'd expect a widespread belief that male interests and are superior and therefore "more rewarding" and "valuable". So as you see, these gender quotas are just symptoms of a very deep rooted form of misogyny that is so pervasive that even women buy into it.
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:4, Funny)
In a male dominated society, of course you'd expect a widespread belief that male interests and are superior and therefore "more rewarding" and "valuable".
My wife has made it quite clear that males' interests are far less interesting than females' interests. I agree wholeheartedly with her, and will continue to do so as long as she has a vagina.
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:men and women have different interests (Score:5, Interesting)
The best article written about this was by Philip Greenspun (MIT Prof) at http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science [greenspun.com]
The best quote from the article was this: "I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory."
Why do we care anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is there not so strong a push to get more male nurses and primary school teachers? Or even publishing?
Is it because these are seen as female professions and therefore less worthy?
Re:Why do we care anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
So, if we are going to open the professions to everyone, then we have to deal with the genuine childhood and adolescent issues that exist in many schools. One of these is a balance of male and female in primary education. But a bigger issue is the kind of anecdotal assumptions that litter every discussion, even here on /. where we are supposable educated and logical. In reality much of it has not to do with ability, but social expectations. For example, a girl can go through a pre-engineering program in high school and go to college or get a well paying job right of out school, and, if she likes, open a consultancy a few years later. This does not happen because social exceptions, her peer group, requires her to take cosmetology, or the like, which is seldom rigorous enough to prepare for college classes. Nothing wrong with that. It is her choice, but it seems like the choice is often made on false assumptions. Likewise a guy may blow off all the science classes and graduate with a bad GPA because he just figures he will work construction. Again, nothing wrong with that, except, again that is might be made under false assumptions.
In both these cases what is happening is that kids are closing the doors to future opportunities at a very young age, perhaps 12. In my experience it is much easier to go to college, give up, and become a cosmetologist, that it is to not take college prep classes, work in as a cosmetologist, and then go back to college and become, for instance, a cosmologist. Likewise, during these boom times we think the construction jobs are never going to end. But they will, and how hard is going to be to learn at 30 what should have been learned at 15. Might it have been easier for the guy to, for instance, become a nurse at 22, and start earning nurses salary immediately? We see the same thing with athletes of both genders. The expected average salary of athlete, integrated over all candidates over the average earning lifetime, is likely no more than 15K a year, not much better than minimum wage. Yet the social pressures push kids to these dead end professions.
So, outside of rampant capitalism, why do we care. Because by saying that equality is important, we, in some small way negate the social pressures so that boy might get his science scores high enough so that he may become a nurse, if he can compete with the women. This of course is why so many people are adamantly opposed to such quotas. Because if that girl does get her act together in high school, and completes all her coursework through college, then she will get that engineering job, and the less qualified man will not. And many see that as unfair. It is much easier to funnel most of the talented motivated girls to teaching and nursing, so that we have these protected highly paid occupations like engineering where incompetent men, many who, from my experience, cannot even put a fuse in correctly, can make enough money to fulfill the societal necessary role as head of the household, i.e. wear the pants.
And if you didn't catch my little side remark there, teaching and nursing requires some kick butt above average education, especially nursing, which is why they get paid the bucks.
Note the contradiction... (Score:5, Insightful)
So they object because a) It will make it seem that women need a leg up, and b) they'll have to dumb down science to give women a leg up. I don't particularly believe the second, but if it is true, that would mean the first is just an accurate appraisal of reality.
Re:Note the contradiction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Note the contradiction... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes they did.
Females are put into positions where they cannot do their physical part routinely. However, to bring it up would be the end to your career.
STFU unless you've had to carry a female's rucksack for her. Every military school i've been to that allowed females has shown me what a liability they can be.
This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to achieve true equality between genders is to treat them the same.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The scientific process is unbiased towards either gender.
Yes and no. The thing is, there's no objective "scientific process" out there. Science is what scientists, as people, do. And people in general can quite easily be biased, in any number of ways. The hypotheses which one formulates and chooses to test, the explanations one chooses to describe a certain behavior - those did not come out of an objective vacuum.
On the other hand, there's certainly a realm of things out there in the world that are just as amenable to women testing and experimenting with them as to men.
For a brief overview, see Wikipedia's section on the philosophy and sociology of science in the Scientific Method [wikipedia.org] article.
The only way to achieve true equality between genders is to treat them the same.
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe if everyone had treated everyone else the same from day one, that would work. But so much water is already under the bridge. Could you say the same thing about race? Ideally, it would have been nice to simply go from segregation and Jim Crow laws to treating blacks and whites the same (assuming that were possible). But that ignores what had happened to blacks in the past - what kind of education did they receive in the 'separate but equal' schools? How well will they compete in social structures that only served whites for so long? I think those are all important things to consider, and that it's simplistic to simply say "start treating everyone the same."
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
How about (Score:5, Insightful)
How about putting those in positions who have earned them, regardless of age, sex or race, instead of mandating a certain ratio. If anything, the mandated ratio will foster more discrimination because of the perceived view that they "didn't earn it".
Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of courTitle IX would hurt men's science education (Score:4, Informative)
Not only conceivable, but almost certain, since that's exactly what Title IX did [blogwonks.com] to men's college sports [reason.com].
This is very interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
The solution is obvious. (Score:5, Funny)
We must force women to enter careers in hard sciences and engineering.
Scientific Method (Score:4, Funny)
As a female (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As a female (Score:5, Funny)
And yes I really am a woman. I really am
Outrageous claims are made on /. every day. Given the demographics of this site, you will have do to more the words. To borrow from Shakespeare, me thinks the carbonunit doth protest to much...however, on the off chance I may be wrong, I am a mature minded nerd with actual outside interests besides computers. Now tell us all you have a husband or boyfriend otherwise I'd like to finally claim first post!
Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government wants to start a program to get more women into science and engineering fields, it should be aimed at young kids.
Okay, but why should it do that? How about presenting kids with a wide range of options for what to do with their lives, and let them decide what's interesting?
I think that's pretty close to what we're doing now, and if that means there aren't many women in engineering, then that's the way it is.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that you're referring to it as a problem. Why is it a problem that people with substantial genetic differences have different urges and inclinations when it comes to how they want to spend their time? Equality of opportunity is not, and should not be equality of results. Otherwise we'd have to make sure that some very smart people are also assigned ditch digging jobs, just that everything shakes out fairly. You know, quotas. Excellent idea. This, right here, is what your Nancy-Pelosi-Run-Congress is spending time working on? With all of the real stuff that we need to worry about?
What's the ratio in congress? (Score:5, Insightful)
50% women; 50% men?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem with women in chemistry (Score:5, Interesting)
Guys can have a child while doing research, but it is much more difficult for women. Pregnancy can mean that you have to stop doing certain types of research or it may just interfere with your ability to be competitive in your field. Putting off childbearing until after getting a PhD and postdoc will put most women firmly into their thirties when they have children, at which time birth defects and complications become more prevalent.
Some professors don't like women in their labs for this very reason. By the time a woman has completed her research, if she has had a child in that time frame, someone else may have already published it.
Science is competitive, and women are often at a disadvantage.
Re:One problem with women in chemistry (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that motherhood alone is a serious barrier to getting a PhD.
The challenges of getting good childcare, and having sufficiently supportive male partners - now we're talking...
Oh - but implementing social programs would cost money - but enforcing quotas is "free"
So (Score:5, Interesting)
So where do I go to demand that there are equal numbers of male and female babysitters, maids, nurses, and elementary school teachers? And can someone remind me what the ratio of men to women in congress is?
In short: stupid idea. If women don't *want* to be scientists and engineers, fix it in schools by encouraging them to try it and doing your best to encourage the removal of the societal bias against it. Allowing minorities and women who are *less* qualified then white males to get jobs just to fulfill a quota is one thing that *will* reduce the quality of our science and engineering.
If you want to remove bias in hiring scientists and engineers, at require that the person who makes the decision to grant interviews not see any information that could identify a person's sex or race, including the name. Then, if you must, require that the interviewer match the interviewee in sex and race and if the interviewer isn't given the authority to decide who gets hired, again remove any identifying information from the report before it goes to the person who does make the decision.
That's a nice, scientific way to reduce (not eliminate... women and minorities can still be biased against other women and minorities) bias without hurting the final product. I mean, what would you do in the proposed bill if you only got 10 female and 90 male applications to fill 30 spots? Pick women off the street and try to make them do someone else's job?
A PITA for women and a boon to misogyny. (Score:5, Insightful)
These women, having "made it" themselves, often don't feel that sexual discrimination is still a significant issue in their field. However, they still feel pressured to participate lest they be labeled "anti-feminist". I wouldn't be surprised if some women who have had success in the physical sciences have, when possible, fled to a less male-dominated field just to lighten their workloads.
While it's certainly a good thing to ensure that there is a level playing field in male dominated fields, some of these organizations really ought to back off and let women in science and engineering concentrate on their work instead of wasting their time and holding them back with nonsense. Make no mistake, if you saddle a woman with 20+ hours/week of extra duties just because she's a woman, you're no better than the "evil oppressing misogynists" you think you're fighting.
I say we put quotas on Congress, first (Score:5, Insightful)
I say we put quotas on Congress, first; talk about your "boys clubs"...
Why don't they get their own house in order?
-- Terry
I must ask ... (Score:4, Funny)
Where is the push for sex quotas in space? Where is the push for the space-based study of elderly people with dentures giving oral sex in microgravity?!?
Spacecorps Directives be damned!
It isn't that we're not trying (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been on several search committees at a state university for faculty positions in a chemistry department. We are actively _trying_ to get women faculty, but last time around I don't think we even got one female applicant...certainly not a domestic (USA) female applicant.
In the search prior to that, we had one qualified female applicant. We offered her the position, and she turned it down. We moved to the next most qualified candidate, who was male.
I have no idea how we'd handle a quota. Just pick someone off the street and say to her "okay, you're a chemistry professor. We need to keep our federal funding."?
Wrong answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't speak for the engineers, but I think a reasonable case could be made that scientific careers are indeed poorly accessible for women. Because they are, generally speaking, not very family friendly: The standard assumption is that young scientists are willing to work long and irregular hours for modest pay and put up with a long series of short-term funding and temporary contracts. Scientific careers are high-effort, high-risk, and even many men feel that this kind of work culture is not very compatible with family life and responsible behaviour towards their children, and abandon academic research for industry jobs.
However, instituting quota for women seems to be very much the wrong answer, and one that is likely to be treated with some contempt by female scientists. However, call me a cynic, I doubt Congress really cares about that. Female scientists are not a large voting block. And the lawyers who dominate the political professions are, in the depths of their soul, probably not convinced that science really matters that much. (Well, certainly not as much as lawyering.) Defining quota seems a typically lawyerly answer to me.
Besides, in the case of the USA, the country doesn't just have a shortage of female scientists but plainly a shortage of scientists, albeit one that is much alleviated by immigration. The real answer is in making scientific careers more attractive. The reason why Congress is not considering this is not difficult to figure out: It would cost money, if only a modest amount, and any results would only be visible after they have left office.
An important point for those who didn't RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
A big piece of the article was pointing out that women in science don't particularly want this, organizations teaching science don't want this, and men in science don't want this. The institutions involved are filling out the paperwork but definitely aren't interested in suddenly making 50% of all science graduates women.
And the article also made the appropriate comparison with the field of psychology, which is now something like 70% female (similar disparities exist in education, particularly primary education).
still waiting for Men's Studies classes (Score:5, Insightful)
If universities are forced to ensure that the gender of athletes is proportional to the rates of enrollment, regardless of actual interest, then I don't see why they shouldn't have Men's Studies programs to mirror Women's Studies, regardless of actual interest.
This is because feminism was never actually about equality, but improving the social status of women. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself - I don't see why the NAACP should take it upon itself to stick up for Latinos, for example. Whereas the goal of feminism is gender equality, but is really only about improving things for women.
Take the suffragist movement, for example. It was started [wikipedia.org] at a convention in 1848, finally succeeding on a national scale with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Know what else happened in that time? The Civil War and World War I. Note that suffragists didn't demand the right to be drafted with the right to vote. Ditto that for WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. Hmm.
Today, breast cancer research receives far [nytimes.com] more money than prostate cancer research, even though prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women. Many states have an Office of Women's Health, but only New Hampshire has an Office of Men's Health - and it had to start without any funding.
Men are far and away the #1 victim of assaults and murders and make up at least 40% [california...awblog.com] of domestic violence victims, yet Congress passes a Violence Against Women Act.
But back to school - yes, the vast majority of PhD's are men - but men also round out the bottom of the scale with the most mental disabilities. And if these people were really concerned about equity, they'd be doing something about the 60/40 female/male disparity in overall enrollment.
Which isn't to say that women haven't gotten a raw deal, the point is that men have too. Feminism needs to go away, and be replaced with straight up egalitarianism.
Cold Hard Facts (Score:5, Interesting)
My findings are that why yes, we hired much much much fewer women than men. Is it because we were sexist? No. Is it because they were all underqualified, or even less qualified? No.
The cold-hard fact was that only about 10% of the applicants were women. Interestingly enough, (or maybe not), most of these were not native U.S. citizens, but mostly Chinese or Indian women who had come to study in the U.S.
While I am being a "racist" - I might throw in that we never, in our existance as a company, have ever hired a black person.
Was it because they were underqualified, etc. etc. etc.? Again, no.
In my entire career, I have only ever interviewed a single black applicant for an engineering position. (BTW - We actually made this person a good offer, which they accepted, but their existing employer countered it and we lost them.)
My point is that there are less "women and minorities" hired into these positions becasue there are far far far less candidates - not because of any discrimination.
Does discrimination exist in the world? Sure, it does - but to be honest, in the competitive nature of the companies I've been at - and the difficulty in hiring good candidates - I don't think anyone would care if the candidate was a green transsexual with three eyes - if they were a solid candidate - they'd be hired on those grounds.
I've also worked for "Women Owned" companies. This is something that the feds have set up - If your company is at least 51% "woman owned or run" (or minority owned and run) - then you get preferential treatment in dealing with the Feds, and contractors that do business with the Feds. (Like they have to do business with a certain quota of these companies). In my experience, these all have been a smoke-and-mirrors game - Whitey giving his ol' lady a business card that says "CEO" on it, to try and drum up some more business, etc. etc. etc.
Certain people are drawn to certain professions - and that's an individual decision, and there probably is some biological basis in the Men vs. Women thing. Like people have pointed out, should we mandate quotas that H.R. people and Flight Attendents be a certain percent male too?
Now as the "Minorities" go - let's cut to the chase. By "Miniories", we're only talking about certian "Minorities". We're talking about blacks, hispanics, eskimos, Native Americans - and I'm sure some others - but we are NOT talking about Indians, Chinese, or Australians for that matter.
If Congress really wanted to even-out the playing field - they'd be investing money into inner-city schools - like a mile a way from them in DC - which are literally falling apart - and more like prisons than schools. Turn these into places that foster excitement in learning, science and engineering, and are an oasis inside these inner-city slum areas - and you'll see those kids go off to college and become candidates.
Short of doing that - nothing else will ever work. You can give them a billion dollars in college grant money - but if their schools are gang, crime and filth ridden places where they just get locked-up for a few hours a day - then no quota system on the place of the planet will ever balance that out.
Re:Cold Hard Facts (Score:4, Interesting)
If Congress really wanted to even-out the playing field - they'd be investing money into inner-city schools - like a mile a way from them in DC - which are literally falling apart - and more like prisons than schools. Turn these into places that foster excitement in learning, science and engineering, and are an oasis inside these inner-city slum areas - and you'll see those kids go off to college and become candidates.
Short of doing that - nothing else will ever work. You can give them a billion dollars in college grant money - but if their schools are gang, crime and filth ridden places where they just get locked-up for a few hours a day - then no quota system on the place of the planet will ever balance that out.
Amen to that. I have to say people only look at the situation in the "present" and say, well the ratios are not right, it must be discrimination! People are not willing to deal with the fact that this "discrimination", no matter where it was originated, now deeply rooted in the people's own cultures. But its much easier to pretend to "fix" things via quotas than to say you want to change other people's culture. And thus oppressed become their own oppressors and with all the talk about "equal rights" - no one is actually willing to touch the real problem with a 10 foot pole.
-Em
UK Medicine (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's how the genius program worked with regard to university places to study medicine in the UK...
University recruitment was non gender biased. It was simply a case of less women had the grades in hard sciences and the interest to apply than men did.
The universities got quotas.
With admissions largely based on grades, the only way to get the number of women up was to lower the requirements for women. Typically an A average for men became a B average for women.
Except then they had less able female students failing out of their courses at a much higher rate than more able men.
So they lowered the grade requirements through the whole course. If 90% was an A for a male student, 80% was good enough for a female to get an A.
Universities achieved their directive of educating as many females as males.
And then no one wanted to hire female doctors because they knew an "A" was much easier for women to achieve and thus they were less likely to be as well qualified as a male with a slightly lower grade.
This ended up screwing the bright female doctors. The ones who could get that same A grade entry, who kept getting 90%+, now had the same "A" that was considered worthless as the ones who got in on Bs and kept making 80%. Thus the bright female doctors got tarred by the same denial based system.
If you want to fix a problem, you have to fix it from the ground up. Don't ever lower entry and passing requirements for any subset. If you're finding out a subset don't apply as much and don't do as well, figure out what the root of that is and fix it.
Don't let women slack their way through science degrees and give them a meaningless certificate. Find out why science doesn't appeal to girls much earlier in their academic lives and challenge that.
Don't give half price admission to universities to someone because of their skin color. Look at what the roots of that skin color not getting to university really are. If a disproportionate number are failing because they're disproportionately coming from lower income areas and schools in those areas don't turn them out at the same levels as schools in good areas... address those schools. If the root cause goes deeper, look deeper. If their community doesn't value education, look at how to change that perception, rather than making a blanket racial based change way down the line.
As an aside, why do these programs always seem to only go one way? No one suggests nursing should have quotas to force the schools to lower entry requirements for males... it's accepted that more men aren't interested for reasons that kick in far earlier in life. Yet, if women aren't interested in a science degree... that's something that has to be forced on schools.
If you're really stupid enough to slap a quota based bandaid on a problem, rather than addressing underlying causes, at least be consistent enough to apply it to all course types. That's at least more consistent than just picking one minority (though, technically, there are slightly more women than men) that you feel is underserved and making the situation even more discriminatory, just in new ways.
This is true gender discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
The less qualified are pushed ahead of the more qualified, just because of gender. How is this not the brazen form of discrimination?
Re:Title 9 (Score:5, Funny)
You realize that it's the lycra they're advertising, not the chicks, right?
Re:Case Study... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Case Study... (Score:4, Interesting)
How many of us are available for call any time day or night. Where's my work:home balance.
How about fixing that ?
The truth is, that without my wife bearing the brunt of raising the kids, I would not be able to do the job I do as a married man with children. It would be impossible.
Re:What if they fail? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really though, that is exactly the problem. The people mandating these quotas are assuming that there is an overwhelming number of talented women who are not getting into schools because of a (yet unproven) bias. The reality? Most women just have less interest in certain fields, just like most men have less interest in certain fields. Case-in-point:
My school's electrical engineering program has had a long-running goal: double female enrollment. This recently had to be changed to "increase female enrollment" because my graduating year has zero women (this includes computer engineering, which is considered a semi-separate department). It's not that the female applicants were discriminated against; in fact, there have been no allegations of discrimination of any type in the department, and we have faculty of all races and genders (and one member who had a sex-change operation a few years ago). There just aren't many female applicants. In fact, the policy for meeting that goal was to increase advertising to female high school seniors, including deliberately skewing the ratio of pictures of male engineers to females (which required us to get pictures from other departments).
If there was a quota for female enrollment, we wouldn't even have an EE department. It is one thing to be politically correct, and I certainly wouldn't go around claiming that women are inherently inferior to men (I would have nothing to base such a claim on anyway, since I have no points of comparison). It is quite another to demand that the statistics be changed through legislation.
Re:I really don't know what you are talking about (Score:5, Interesting)
I have never felt any problems with what you call "gatekeepers". There are plenty of incentives and opportunities for women in sciences, you just have to show your work.
Yes, there is probably a few jerks around, but what you do is tough it up, otherwise you will never make it as a scientist anyway.
And I am sorry, but maybe some women should not be choosing these careers anyway. I believe most of the disparity is because of lack of interest from them, not from any barriers in the system.
So stop whining and get to work, people.
Re:I really don't know what you are talking about (Score:4, Interesting)
Congrats, I'm glad you've had a much more positive experience than many other women have. I can tell stories about people I know personally who have been jerked around in the sciences/engineering due to gender, but neither of our anecdotes is worth much. What is worth a lot is the data, and there are *copious* data on this topic and they point pretty strongly to the conclusion that women (and girls) are being discouraged from pursuing careers in the sciences. I don't have any at my fingertips, but you can pretty easily Google to find some. (That, or I could ask my best friend who reads the studies a lot more than I do.)