Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "role model" issue is something that was invented by Leftwing educators to explain away the fact that some groups outperform others. Obviously, this whole idea is stupid. A girl can't have a male as a role model? A girl can't see a successful man and decide she wants to follow his path? Weren't many successful women already inspired by men? And if girls need to see a woman in a particular line of work before she decides that she also wants to go into that field, what does that say about females in general? That they aren't capable of thinking outside the box?
Exactly. Who/what was the "role model" for Amelia Earhart for example?
It looks like some women simply have what it takes to do the stuff they need to do, while others can only complain about the "lack of the role models."
And why is that, inquiring minds want to know...
Now it's my turn to question - "is this serious?"
So how were children EVER getting interested in science without "audrino kits to program robots" and "working lights and light switches to dollhouses?"
I mean WHO invented even those things, (apparently being interested in science without any "dollhouses with light switches") at the first place?
And as far as the "pop culture" goes, that doesn't promote "STEM careers," how do SOME people still find their way to them?
Is it because they are just born with talents no matter what, and their "call" allows them to disregard all the claptrap of "pop culture?"
Could this be the case?
Well let's talk about Bill Gates. He is obviously a smart guy. But he also was lucky in terms of growing up in the right family at the right time. His mom was on the board at IBM. His school had computer science classes. And one of the clubs worked to get him a computer so he could code.
When I graduated high school there were no schools in the area that had computer programming classes. Definite let not within 100 miles.
A lot of people have the aptitude for STEM, but they didn't have an opportunity to spark that interest. Or societal,or cultural norms discouraged them from doing so. We could do a lot more soft stuff to spark the interest.
But a,l of this is derailing the actual point. There isn't a pipeline problem. There is an access to opportunity problem. Oracle just got sued by the labor department for underpaying everyone who wasn't a white male. My engineer friends jump ship because they have a toxic work environment where the male colleagues ask like pubescent boys and don't take them seriously. And then many of you on this thread apparently think women are incapable of grasping abstract concepts.
Yeah it is really sad. These are the things that play into women not pursuing STEM.
While I had a great teacher that encouraged my interest in math, I had plenty before that that didn't believe someone like me could be a good math student. My parents just made me practice more and lucky for me at the critical time in middle school I ran into an encouraging teacher. Of course that didn't help retain me, but I'll probably end up in the fold at some point. I am already 70% there in the work I do now. But who knows what sort of awesome talent got discouraged.
What if a man considered his gender identity as a woman? Does GE count him as 'hiring a female'?
Once the deadline arrives and GE sees that they haven't met their goal of a 50/50 split between men and women, they will encourage males to check the box that says female. Problem solved right there.
Is this a serious question? Why do people need role models?
The possibilities in your imagination are limited by what you can see and have access to.
You don't have access to tv and books?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
People in STEM careers are virtually invisible in pop culture. It is getting marginally better now. I was an avid reader as a kid. I don't recall a single book I read with a scientist outside of a doctor until I read Jurassic Park as a teen.
How can somebody be an avid reader and not to read Jules Verne?
[/quote]
Well let's talk about Bill Gates. He is obviously a smart guy. But he also was lucky in terms of growing up in the right family at the right time. His mom was on the board at IBM. His school had computer science classes. And one of the clubs worked to get him a computer so he could code.
When I graduated high school there were no schools in the area that had computer programming classes. Definite let not within 100 miles.
A lot of people have the aptitude for STEM, but they didn't have an opportunity to spark that interest. Or societal,or cultural norms discouraged them from doing so. We could do a lot more soft stuff to spark the interest.
But that's "people." I imagine that quiet a few MEN can complain about the lack of the same opportunities/chances as Bill Gates had - not just women.
So should we go into the subject of why America is NOT exactly the country of "equal opportunities"?
But this is going to be a different subject all together, whereas here we discuss specifically women's abilities to work in STEM occupations.
Quote:
But a,l of this is derailing the actual point. There isn't a pipeline problem. There is an access to opportunity problem. Oracle just got sued by the labor department for underpaying everyone who wasn't a white male. My engineer friends jump ship because they have a toxic work environment where the male colleagues ask like pubescent boys and don't take them seriously. And then many of you on this thread apparently think women are incapable of grasping abstract concepts. Yeah it is really sad. These are the things that play into women not pursuing STEM.
Again - there are "abstract concepts" and there are "abstract concepts."
Art, psychology, history, sociology - those are all abstract concepts too. And women are doing there just fine.
Quote:
While I had a great teacher that encouraged my interest in math, I had plenty before that that didn't believe someone like me could be a good math student. My parents just made me practice more and lucky for me at the critical time in middle school I ran into an encouraging teacher. Of course that didn't help retain me, but I'll probably end up in the fold at some point. I am already 70% there in the work I do now. But who knows what sort of awesome talent got discouraged.
When talent is truly "awesome," it doesn't end because of "discouraging teacher."
Being a "good math student" is not enough for future careers in engineering, physics or mechanics either.
It's just an initial stepping stone to it. A lot of "good math students" end up being book-keepers and accountants. ( Which by the way is yet another well-paid field of occupation as far as I remember.)
Well let's talk about Bill Gates. He is obviously a smart guy. But he also was lucky in terms of growing up in the right family at the right time. His mom was on the board at IBM. His school had computer science classes. And one of the clubs worked to get him a computer so he could code.
1987, a very bad neighborhood in Israel, poor immigrant single mom from USSR, 12 yo kid. Looks bad, right? And still she was able to buy me a pc so I could learn programming. The programming material I got from the library.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
When I graduated high school there were no schools in the area that had computer programming classes. Definite let not within 100 miles.
So you move. I moved from Israel to Western Europe and then to USA to pursue my goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
A lot of people have the aptitude for STEM, but they didn't have an opportunity to spark that interest. Or societal,or cultural norms discouraged them from doing so. We could do a lot more soft stuff to spark the interest.
I don't buy it. If this kind of thing discourage you, you are not made from material that can work 16 hours straight to achieve a deadline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
But a,l of this is derailing the actual point. There isn't a pipeline problem. There is an access to opportunity problem. Oracle just got sued by the labor department for underpaying everyone who wasn't a white male. My engineer friends jump ship because they have a toxic work environment where the male colleagues ask like pubescent boys and don't take them seriously. And then many of you on this thread apparently think women are incapable of grasping abstract concepts.
Yeah it is really sad. These are the things that play into women not pursuing STEM.
So they are weak. We don't need week people in STEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
While I had a great teacher that encouraged my interest in math, I had plenty before that that didn't believe someone like me could be a good math student. My parents just made me practice more and lucky for me at the critical time in middle school I ran into an encouraging teacher. Of course that didn't help retain me, but I'll probably end up in the fold at some point. I am already 70% there in the work I do now. But who knows what sort of awesome talent got discouraged.
My literature teacher told me that I know nothing in literature. few years later I sent him my book that was published in a very serious publishing house.
If this kind of things discourage you, you don't deserve a high STEM salary. You can flip burgers instead.
STEM is unattainable by most, yes. What is the percentage of STEM workers/all workers?
How GE is going to get this goal? If women/men correlation in sent resumes is 20/80, it means that people will be hired based on gender. For me it's gender based discrimination.
It's not unattainable by most because most innately lack the aptitude. There are other variables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
For someone who works in a STEM field, you seem to have a difficult time grasping the concept of averages.
Men are innately physically stronger than women. Yes, there are some women who are stronger than a majority of men, but that doesn't change the truth of the first statement. When we say, "Men" and "Women," it should be clear that we are referring to them as groups, not individuals. If I say, "Men are taller than women," it should be understood that I'm speaking about averages. I shouldn't have to explain that fact, but apparently, some out there don't recognize basic language conventions. No one is confused or outraged if I make the statement, "Horses are bigger than dogs," even though there are some horses that are smaller than some dogs.
I don't have a difficult time grasping averages. I don't see what any of this has to do with the conversation. Not one person in this thread has provided any kind of thoughtful argument with evidence that women innately lack aptitude. All that is presented are loose, nonsense analogies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
The "role model" issue is something that was invented by Leftwing educators to explain away the fact that some groups outperform others. Obviously, this whole idea is stupid. A girl can't have a male as a role model? A girl can't see a successful man and decide she wants to follow his path? Weren't many successful women already inspired by men? And if girls need to see a woman in a particular line of work before she decides that she also wants to go into that field, what does that say about females in general? That they aren't capable of thinking outside the box?
Are you making assumptions or have you studied the subject? Clearly role models matter. There is more than enough literature that discusses these issues to death.
And really, a girl is going to follow a male role model who tells her she lacks aptitude? I will be my daughter's role model, but look at all the (k)no(w)-nothings who want to tell her that she lacks aptitude because she's a woman. Even if these people themselves do not meet the bar they set for her.
Last edited by Cassy Fae; 02-19-2017 at 02:57 PM..
Some are completely missing this point, that it's not about "crunching the formulas" and "passing the tests," but actually proceeding to the next level, improving and designing the new things.
And yes, that requires A LOT of "rigorous and often mundane mental effort," and a lot of consistency and persistence, which women usually don't have for this kind of tasks. If they'd be wired for this kind of things, exactly in the same manner as men, they wouldn't be able to switch that easily to the childbirth/rearing of children, which is their primary responsibility.
Heck, obviously not even all men are capable of this particular kind of "mental effort," that's why this "tech pool" is relatively small overall.
Do you even understand what you're saying here? What do you mean by wires, specifically? Are you speaking of neurotransmitters, hormones, genetics?
Are you also saying that black people, Spanish are not wired either? If you are I'd like to know if this is just sexism or if it's racism as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
No, STEM fields ( particularly when it comes to physics/electricity/mechanics, but not limited to,) are precisely the holy grail, as the modern history proves us.
This is what separates the first world countries from the third ones, the metropoles from colonies and the rest.
And it happens to be so, that the specific people that advance those causes ( i.e. that are capable of moving the science, and thus increasing the advantage of some nations over the others) are White males, predominantly of Northern European descent ( add Jews there.)
It is what is is, and your anecdotal evidence to prove otherwise is just that - anecdotal evidence.
You are confusing domination with innate aptitude and it isn't what it is. All that is ignorance. And holy grail my but. It's a holy grail black box if you are outside of it and that's a part of the problem. It's not the answer.
It's not unattainable by most because most innately lack the aptitude. There are other variables.
I don't have a difficult time grasping averages. I don't see what any of this has to do with the conversation. Not one person in this thread has provided any kind of thoughtful argument with evidence that women innately lack aptitude. All that is presented are loose, nonsense analogies.
Are you making assumptions or have you studied the subject? Clearly role models matter. There is more than enough literature that discusses these issues to death.
And really, a girl is going to follow a male role model who tells her she lacks aptitude? I will be my daughter's role model, but look at all the (k)no(w)-nothings who want to tell her that she lacks aptitude because she's a woman. Even if these people themselves do not meet the bar they set for her.
That's right.
People are either born with this abilities or not. Some men are, some are not. And more men are born with this abilities than women, as the practice shows us.
So what are you arguing about then?
That's right.
People are either born with this abilities or not. Some men are, some are not. And more men are born with this abilities than women, as the practice shows us.
So what are you arguing about then?
No, read the sentence again. Sigh.
I did not say "It's unattainable by most because most innately lack the aptitude."
Sorry, but I don't buy into the bull idea that Hispanics are inherently less intelligent, that black people are inherently less intelligent, that women are less intelligent. Given the opportunity people are quite capable. What you are doing now is attempting to take that opportunity by driving a rather thoughtless, destructive narrative without any evidence or critical thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
