Back in 2005, economist Lawrence Summers explained why there were so few women in top positions in science, saying it was partly related to “substantive aptitude issues.” He suggested that there may be. That was one of the reasons he was ousted from his position as president of Harvard University the following year. And if this standard is still maintained, many young children will have to be cancelled. After all, already by the age of six, many children accept Summers' theory.
In other words, they believe that boys are better at computer science and engineering.
In any case, that's what a recent analysis of about 100 studies found. And of course, the mainstream media is warning us that this is a big problem. As they say, this means that children have “internalized gender stereotypes.” But there's another reason kids think men are better at computing and engineering.
Because they are.
If that sounds like bigotry, well, there's a lot to avoid. Consider that one of the studies analyzed found that by the age of eight, students believed that girls had better language skills. Other studies have found that children think academic success is “for girls.” But it's also not something the media leads (in fact, it's barely mentioned). That's not to say they're the problem. Nor is there any suggestion that this could be the result of “internalization of gender stereotypes.” (And now we understand why people are increasingly internalizing certain stereotypes about mainstream media. Hint: it's slowly driving people out of business.)
Ah, patriarchy!
The aforementioned analysis was conducted by the American Institute for Research (AIR) and included 98 different studies. AIR senior researcher David Miller explains a little about the scope of this analysis and its methodology in Scientific American, writing:
We embarked on a five-year study to synthesize more than 40 years of previous research on children's gender stereotypes regarding STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) abilities. We compiled a large dataset of over 145,000 children from 33 countries who measured stereotypes in a variety of ways. For example, a study might ask children, “Are girls or boys better at computer coding?”
result? Miller writes about how awareness of gender differences begins early:
For example, 52 percent of 6-year-olds think boys are better at engineering, while 10 percent think girls are better, making the initial male bias 42 percentage points. In computing, a male bias is also present, albeit to a lesser extent, as early as 6 years of age. However, when it comes to math, the percentage of 6-year-olds who say boys are better at math (28 percent) and the percentage of 6-year-olds who say girls are better at math (32 percent) are about the same. It has been shown that there is no clear winner. (The remaining children did not think one group was better than the other.) These differences reflect related patterns in adults. For example, in the United States, 40 percent of employed mathematicians are women, but only 16 percent of employed engineers are women.
Is there nothing other than AIR?
Now, these results cause a lot of trouble. If these perceptions are not addressed, Miller warns that girls' “future aspirations in rapidly growing technical fields such as artificial intelligence” could be limited. It's a very modern concern that gender stereotypes stigmatize women.
But is there really water here? For example, consider that young children don't even know what engineers do. In other words, one study cited in Miller's paper found that “nearly three-quarters of young children think engineers work on engines and fix cars,” according to a related website. Site “The 74'' reports (they get confused when the word “engineer'' has “engine'' in it), but generalizations about things that aren't actually engineering are really about girls doing actual engineering. Wouldn't that ultimately (if we accept the premise) deter them from becoming auto mechanics?
Second, there is the assumption that what is at stake here is oppressive patriarchy. But if that's the case, why do children believe that girls are better at reading and writing and that academic success is their domain? Patriarchy gives feminists a hard time I wonder if he's doing it?
A more logical explanation is that children believe the above because girls have higher grades and better language skills, especially at younger ages. (In adolescence, girls remain more fluent, while boys begin to use more complex language, so it's a mixed bag.) In other words, these perceptions are “stereotypes,” i.e. negative It's not a term with any connotations. They reflect reality.
But could a suitable generalization also explain children's awakened lament beliefs? After all, 84 percent of employed engineers are men, and 82 percent of computer science degrees are awarded to men. And obviously, people who are highly trained in a field are “better” at that field than people who are not trained in that field.
All socialization?
But aren't these disparities the result of conditioning, as feminists claim? This is not according to the data.
Question: Where are women more likely to enter traditionally male-dominated fields? In a patriarchal country like India, or in an ultra-egalitarian country like Norway?
Answer: India.
reason?
Poorer countries (such as India) have less leeway to indulge in feminism and are therefore more patriarchal. Nevertheless, circumstances force women to go into more lucrative STEM fields to earn money to survive. Women in wealthier, more feminist countries (such as Norway) have the luxury of going where their hearts lead them, which is feminine.
Note that this phenomenon is beautifully depicted in the Norwegian documentary “The Gender Equality Paradox” (below).
In other words, we now know why the STEM gender gap exists. Understanding that is simply a matter of “following the science”, not feminist ideology.
fantasy vs reality
Following common sense also helps. Let's consider something else. Miller and others lament: Girls' interest in science is strong in elementary school, but wanes as they progress to higher education. This is probably a result of that horrible patriarchal classification. But there is a more logical explanation.
The concept of a small child's career is generally very fanciful. They may think: Yeah, that's cool! ” Simple science for elementary school students may also be fun.
But as they grow up and have to deal with more complex and perhaps “dryer” science, reality sets in. And, as one MSN commenter hilariously put it last year, the luster may fade once you realize that you “have to put in hours and hours.” Figure out how to invert a binary tree for a recursive function. ”
But in reality, we need to ask more fundamental questions about the STEM gap between men and women.
who cares?
The idea that all groups should be equally represented in all activities is unrealistic. Also, quite hypocritically, that's not really what the Equality Police are lobbying for. As author Katie Eldiwany pointed out in American Thinker in 2018,
In feminist narratives of grievance, there is no whining about women being “excluded” from working-class, male-dominated occupations. There's a lot of talk about the lack of women in science, engineering, senior management, and CEO roles. But no one asks where are the female garbage collectors, female elevator technicians, female landscape workers, and female oil rig workers?
All of this makes it clear that the feminist cry for “equal representation” is not about equality at all. It's about power and honor.
Feminists also do not complain that 92 percent of workplace fatalities are men. The cry of “equality” is a ploy, not a principle, and it never was.
