6 ms·

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she wo

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.

amazingman 6y ago
What an oddly paternalistic point of view.
- joelhoffman 6y ago
  People do form a lot of their personalities as small children, after all.
  - james_s_tayler 6y ago
    It also has a large genetic component at the same time.
manigandham 6y ago
Wouldn't that apply to both sexes? Can you really tell someone what their interests are? "happy with" is not the same as "interested in" however it seems like the last 2 decades have had a lot of focus on letting people follow their passion.
alexpetralia 6y ago
Is there any evidence that would convince you that interests can diverge, independent of society (nurture)? Your argument relies on the assumption (yes, an assumption, not evidence) that society exclusively determines our interests. You do not admit a role for biology. There is little scientific evidence that supports this view.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Is there any evidence (say, the numerous studies on this very topic) that would convince you that the pipeline of many careers has systemic discriminatory effects driving particular genders and races out of those fields?
  - alexpetralia 6y ago
    In fact, quite a bit! I am already convinced. If tribal associations would clarify, then I am more than likely "on your side." Can you direct me to where I suggested there is no systematic career discrimination towards minorities? If that's how you interpreted my comment, then I apologize for that. There is absolutely substantial structural discrimination; I don't intend to minimize that. The comment I was replying to did in fact specify as an assumption (the antecedent of the conditional) that "society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something." This framing excludes the possibility that something else (namely biology) may affect a person's preferences. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption - again, little scientific evidence supports that view. (Even intuition does not support that view: I don't think most people would argue that men for the most part are "brainwashed" by society to have sexual preferences for women. Likely some of this is biological; in fact, there is a good evolutionary reason for it!)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- Khaine 6y ago
  You mean like that in more gender equal societies, women are less likely to pursue a degree in STEM. Its a well known phenomenon called the gender-paradox[1] [1] http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version....
- magic5227 6y ago
  I didn't say "society exclusively determines our interests" my point was pretty simple. If society at large, in ways small and big, encourage women from joining a field, I think it's likely fewer will participate. This is the argument behind Sheryl Sandberg creating stock photos that demonstrate more inclusion. If all I see are white men with grey hair in photos as doctors, don't you think that might bias women to think that's who doctors are? That's not 100% of what influences an interest, but it's an important one. https://www.gettyimages.com/collections/leanin https://www.gettyimages.com/collections/leanin
- magic5227 6y ago
  https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001 Current research generally does not find evidence that variations in preferences, psychology, or personality stem from genetic or biological factors. Rather, they’re primarily attributed to culture and socialization.
  - reroute1 6y ago
    Actually the abstract points out that this hypothesis is one going against the largely held scientific view of biological factors and gender differences... A rebuttal a year later in the related section points out omissions from this paper and offers a deeper perspective on the differences https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11202-013 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11202-013
bobmcbobface 6y ago
Seriously, who in society is doing this? 20 years ago there was a lot less of a push for women in tech and you actually did hear lots of people espouse this view, now the programmes and encouragement is everywhere and the social cost of a different view is your job. What is being argued and and what is happening don't seem to correlate.
- magic5227 6y ago
  I don't think having a few programs or pr campaigns solves systemic bias. I guess to answer your question, ask women who are in tech or considered it if they experience bias. I have, and I regularly hear depressing and disturbing examples.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.

amazingman 6y ago

What an oddly paternalistic point of view.

joelhoffman 6y ago
People do form a lot of their personalities as small children, after all.
- james_s_tayler 6y ago
  It also has a large genetic component at the same time.

manigandham 6y ago

Wouldn't that apply to both sexes? Can you really tell someone what their interests are? "happy with" is not the same as "interested in" however it seems like the last 2 decades have had a lot of focus on letting people follow their passion.

alexpetralia 6y ago

Is there any evidence that would convince you that interests can diverge, independent of society (nurture)? Your argument relies on the assumption (yes, an assumption, not evidence) that society exclusively determines our interests. You do not admit a role for biology. There is little scientific evidence that supports this view.

XorNot 6y ago
Is there any evidence (say, the numerous studies on this very topic) that would convince you that the pipeline of many careers has systemic discriminatory effects driving particular genders and races out of those fields?
- alexpetralia 6y ago
  In fact, quite a bit! I am already convinced. If tribal associations would clarify, then I am more than likely "on your side." Can you direct me to where I suggested there is no systematic career discrimination towards minorities? If that's how you interpreted my comment, then I apologize for that. There is absolutely substantial structural discrimination; I don't intend to minimize that. The comment I was replying to did in fact specify as an assumption (the antecedent of the conditional) that "society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something." This framing excludes the possibility that something else (namely biology) may affect a person's preferences. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption - again, little scientific evidence supports that view. (Even intuition does not support that view: I don't think most people would argue that men for the most part are "brainwashed" by society to have sexual preferences for women. Likely some of this is biological; in fact, there is a good evolutionary reason for it!)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Khaine 6y ago
You mean like that in more gender equal societies, women are less likely to pursue a degree in STEM. Its a well known phenomenon called the gender-paradox[1] [1] http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version....
magic5227 6y ago
I didn't say "society exclusively determines our interests" my point was pretty simple. If society at large, in ways small and big, encourage women from joining a field, I think it's likely fewer will participate. This is the argument behind Sheryl Sandberg creating stock photos that demonstrate more inclusion. If all I see are white men with grey hair in photos as doctors, don't you think that might bias women to think that's who doctors are? That's not 100% of what influences an interest, but it's an important one. https://www.gettyimages.com/collections/leanin https://www.gettyimages.com/collections/leanin
magic5227 6y ago
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11115-001 Current research generally does not find evidence that variations in preferences, psychology, or personality stem from genetic or biological factors. Rather, they’re primarily attributed to culture and socialization.
- reroute1 6y ago
  Actually the abstract points out that this hypothesis is one going against the largely held scientific view of biological factors and gender differences... A rebuttal a year later in the related section points out omissions from this paper and offers a deeper perspective on the differences https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11202-013 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11202-013

bobmcbobface 6y ago

Seriously, who in society is doing this? 20 years ago there was a lot less of a push for women in tech and you actually did hear lots of people espouse this view, now the programmes and encouragement is everywhere and the social cost of a different view is your job. What is being argued and and what is happening don't seem to correlate.

magic5227 6y ago
I don't think having a few programs or pr campaigns solves systemic bias. I guess to answer your question, ask women who are in tech or considered it if they experience bias. I have, and I regularly hear depressing and disturbing examples.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]