Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Heyzeus Ahchay's avatar

Well then, Glen, according to your unnamed and unidentified "numerous psychological studies" that you present as (unverified) fact, then why, oh why, are women and minorities even seeking work in STEM-based fields, hmmm? According to these studies, they shouldn't be. And if these "variant" women are contradicting your unnamed studies, why would the standards need to be lowered if the women were just as capable as the numerous men already working in those fields? Is it because many of the men working in those fields are only there because of the built-in "girls aren't good enough to work here" culture? Where are your studies on that little phenomenon, Glen? Is it because the men can't tolerate a change in their workplace, Glen? Is it because they're afraid that even more women will become interested in STEM fields and soon sully the playground of the former all-boys club? Is that why "Angewandte Chemie" pulled the article and apologized for having run it in the first place -- because they couldn't defend it on a factual basis, Glen? You'd think they would have if they could have, being a scientific journal and all. Maybe, just maybe,STEM-based work forces are populated by men who are somehow just as misogynistic as the various cultures they grew up in and have to be forced to accept women as equals in a field where the standard is to reject them. And that force would come through quotas and preferences so that women who are as smart as men get a chance to prove it while working in their chosen field because of the long-standing hiring biases built in and still supported by you, Peterson, and Hudlickly. You obviously believe women are inferior and should stay in their own "nature and nurture" lane, and you will do your best to make sure that happens. Oh yeah, and please provide proof that Hudlicky's assertion of "preferential status" -- something HE created -- has been "counterproductive" and has led to provable -- PROVABLE -- "discrimination against the most meritorious candidates." I won't hold my breath waiting for a citation, "Glen." And re-quoting Peterson and Hudlicky won't count.

Expand full comment
glen perk's avatar

My shameless cut and paste. Hope this helps. As I've said numerous studies prove interest (and thus career) choices differ between genders. I didn't say women weren't interested at all, just far fewer.

The magnitude and variability of sex differences in vocational interests were examined in the present meta-analysis for Holland's (1959, 1997) categories (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), Prediger's (1982) Things-People and Data-Ideas dimensions, and the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) interest areas. Technical manuals for 47 interest inventories were used, yielding 503,188 respondents. Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. Average effect sizes varied across interest inventories, ranging from 0.08 to 0.79. The quality of interest inventories, based on professional reputation, was not differentially related to the magnitude of sex differences. Moderators of the effect sizes included interest inventory item development strategy, scoring method, theoretical framework, and sample variables of age and cohort. Application of some item development strategies can substantially reduce sex differences. The present study suggests that interests may play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.

I'm only interested in facts, not your rhetorical questions.

I don't think anyone has issues with more women and minorities entering STEM fields or any in that matter. Both JP and Hudlicky have also stated this, so check your strawman at the door. But allowing more students based on race or gender is discriminatory. Even in the states Affirmative Action has been banned by some states because it is discriminatory.

Now in Canada The Faculty of Medicine launched the Black Student Application Program. The door MLK opened has swung to the point we are now discriminating against non-blacks. How many asians, hispanics, whites were cheated out of seats at the expense of ‘diversity’? Is this not what Hudlicky was warning us about 30 years ago?

Admissions to universities and job positions should be blind. No race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc needed.

Cheers...

Expand full comment
462 more comments...

No posts