Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

My wife has made the observation that there seems to be so much more media, events, toys, etc., targeted at girls in a positive way than for boys. We have two boys, and she has been quite the feminist in the time I’ve known her. As a guy I tend to err on the side of being skeptical of my own initial reactions to women who remark about the sexism rampant in our society. So when she brought this up it certainly carried more weight.

Your link argues women make 99% of what men make if you control for career choice, is that what you are intending to say?

> The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 cents for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero. It’s not zero.

> In other words, women who are doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a man, are still paid one percent less than men at the median for no attributable reason.

Given these circumstances and given the development of recent years, I can't help but hear their clear agenda and it's very likely that this development is partially attributable to overcorrections as in the context discussed here.

Also, since male/females have some differences due to our different biology (especially thinking about hormones influencing behavior to some degree, e.g. causing males to be more aggressive in salary negotiations), the notion of it having to be zero and "no attributable reason" doesn't seem rational to me, but again just underlining their agenda.

I think that link is actually a good example for the current anti-male societal tendencies.

> [See SI Appendix for descriptions of other audits of actual hiring that accord with this view, some dating back to the 1980s. Many studies have argued (see ref. 14) that because only the very top women persist in math-intensive fields, their advantage in being hired is justified because they are more competent than the average male applicant. This is why an accurate evaluation of gender preference in hiring depends on data from an experiment in which competence is held constant.] Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings.

The FA has the same thing going on, it says that females are 3-15 times more likely to be elected, but _also_ that they only make up 40% of elected members, so not even half. The only way that's possible is if significantly less of them are apply to begin with, and it's reasonable to assume there's some self-selecting going (or at the very least, since the groups are so different in size they're not directly comparable in terms of qualifications) on the same as the article you linked.

The issue of men and women acceptance rates in college is even the exact example given on the Simpson's paradox Wikipedia page, because it's such a simple one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

No it's not. It's neither accurate nor fair.

A disproportionate amount of power is held by people who happen to be men. That does not mean men as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power.

People always confuse these things.

Treat people as individuals, not as instances of groups.

Teams I've created have always been fairly balanced on gender, and it's been good for productivity. When I've taken over all-male teams, and hired women, it's been good for productivity. That's just my experience, and I know it runs counter to some others, but then I've never encountered the difficulties that others have had with hiring talented women who are great assets to their team. It's weird that I'm getting downvoted for what are very reasonable experiences, though. Makes me think that HN is trending more towards politics and less towards news for hackers...

I'm not telling you to sacrifice your son to some abstract goal. I'm telling you that his happiness depend on things more meaningful than a gender label. Your son doesn't have to attach his identity to an oppressor class that is ending, which surely would impact his happiness. He can instead attach it to the end of oppression, something he can feel happy working toward.

And it's not my idea that ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. It's a basic fact that if Bucket A has 4 apples and Bucket B has 2 apples, asymmetric behavior will be required to get an equal number of apples in the buckets. Similarly, reducing my male privilege is going to require behaviors that are not perfectly the same toward all people. Should we try to minimize "collateral damage" as we move forward? Absolutely! But we should also keep in mind that not moving forward means ongoing damage. If we treat the collateral damage to men (from improvement) as more important than the damage to women (from not improving), that's just another flavor of patriarchy.

A good example here is the American Revolution. Oppression by force is an obvious wrong. So is killing people. Was it wrong for Americans to revolt, knowing they would have to commit wrongs along the way?

I do not know about this particular fellow, but I think at least some part of the current generation of older people have similar views, much more than in the previous centuries. Relative prosperity in recent times has ensured that many of these dimwits now have the opportunity to survive and now that they are in positions of power or influence.

The inability of our society to protect victims and the weak when they happen to be male is one of the strongest signs that the left wing is no longer actually liberal.

When I was younger and older male mentor told me this. He told me that many people don't know this but while society paints a picture of men being bumbling fools trying to crack the code that is this mysterious creature called a woman, the truth is actually the other way around.

Men understand women better than women understand men.

He said that both sexes are equally complex and very different but the cultural stereotype occurs because men have a strong desire to understand a woman while women simply view men through the most stereotypical lens possible without caring to understand anything deeper.

He told me that it is a mans job to take care of a woman, to look after her needs and to be her rock. He told me to never to fully reveal the full truth of what a man is to a woman... that a man is in actuality a creature who is sensitive... with wants and needs and vulnerabilities. He said not to reveal any of this to another woman because the relationship a man has with a woman is more like a father to a daughter, the father cannot reveal the full reality of what he is to his daughter because it is frightening to her to know the full truth of what he faces outside of her world. If part of this truth is revealed during courtship the woman will find this aspect of a man despicable and disgusting, and moves on to another man that appears stronger.

He also said to not get confused when a woman says she wants a sensitive man. He stated that she doesn't want a "sensitive" man, mainly what she is saying is that she wants a man "sensitive" to her needs.

He believed that women simply don't care to understand men for what they really are. They don't want to and they aren't suppose to either. I think by suppose to he meant that this is biology... standard human behavior.

He did tell me that what he told me was just a generality. He said occasionally I might encounter a woman who truly understands the psychology of men and he said usually that woman is a mother who has a son and has seen what her son has to go through growing up. Your son hasn't fully grown up yet, so I don't know how much of this applies to you.

If he were telling this to you, I think he would say that an aspect of your son lives inside your husband but your husband and every man is in actuality hiding this aspect from you and their respective spouses.

Would you say this is true? Would a lot of what's going on with modern society simply a lack of understanding?

> Our research suggests that the mechanism resulting in women’s underrepresentation today may lie more on the supply side, in women’s decisions not to apply, than on the demand side, in antifemale bias in hiring. The perception that STEM fields continue to be inhospitable male bastions can become self-reinforcing by discouraging female applicants (26–29), thus contributing to continued underrepresentation, which in turn may obscure underlying attitudinal changes.

> Thus, real-world hiring data showing a preference for women, inherently confounded and open to multiple interpretations because of lack of controls on applicant quality, experience, and lifestyle, are consistent with our experimental findings.

> We hope the discovery of an overall 2:1 preference for hiring women over otherwise identical men will help counter self-handicapping and opting-out by talented women at the point of entry to the STEM professoriate, and suggest that female underrepresentation can be addressed in part by increasing the number of women applying for tenure-track positions.

Edit: Hence why this is complicated. You're clearly suggesting the 2:1 ratio indicates it must be unfair in some way, but the article itself suggests it's not. Fundamentally, you cannot assume that merit-based hiring would result in a 1:1 ratio of male/female, at least not initially.

You’re also quite incorrect about when DEI programs started, they’re just actually called that now. Women have outnumbered men in universities since around 1980 because of attempts to get more women into college.

Edit: hard to keep up with the ninja edits, the point in the last paragraph is significantly changed.

There is nothing logical or scientific that precludes differences in intelligence either. Clearly women are significantly smarter then men in practically every area.

It's both sexist and wrong.