[flagged]
Other fields do still suffer a deficit of female participation, and the reasons for that are highly debated of course.
Notably for this site, there are vanishingly few female engineers compared to the male population.
My pop explanation is that engineers are produced in a pipeline that starts with games (particularly video games) which are stigmatized in the typical socialization that young girls are subject to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39600642
suggests that women did a great deal of coding until home computers became widespread and heavily marketed towards males.
“So when Ordóñez got to Johns Hopkins University in the '80s, she figured she would study computer science or electrical engineering. Then she took her first intro class — and found that most of her male classmates were way ahead of her because they'd grown up playing with computers.”
A programmer is not so different to a tennis player: training begins before age 10. Anyone entering a compsci university course at age 18 without substantial experience of computing has a mountain to climb.
If you look at the absolute numbers graph that is obvious, women continued the same path it already had, men had a massive spike with the growth of home gaming. And that is still true today, extremely few girls dream of making their own games even though many of them play games and many games are marketed to women.
A parallel can be drawn to the much higher prevalence of autism in males, which some studies attribute to a less sensitive mirror neuron system.
In contrast, women are much more empathetic and able to acknowledge, process and understand emotions both in others and themselves.
Group identity is my personal favorite. People self filter on every possible aspect in life, and work choice has gender segregation on a very large number of layers. The teacher profession has gender segregation at the initial start of the pipeline, during the training phase, during the first professional years, during the specialization phase, during the senior phase, and so on. They segregate on which schools they pick, country vs city, and so on.
Sweden has public available statistics on work profession, and it is gathered as part of tax collection so it has very high accuracy. Guess which profession has highest gender segregation, and how high it is. There are no engineer jobs that sits at the 99%, or the 99.8% that is ratio of the single most gender segregated profession.
If we look at quantity the assertion is true.
So I guess I can tell you a couple of my anecdotes, to make up for that one, uh?
One: I am an expat in a country with a pretty difficult language. Within my circle of expat friends (all couples), only the women had taken the time, investment and effort to go deep and learn the local language. In ALL cases she knows the language better than her male partner.
Two: At last job I met a woman who moved from accounting to CS in her late 30's. It was her second CS job, and in 3 years she "overtook" me in the company technical ranks, very deservedly so.
I could make a very long list, but I'll leave it here. So please stop being a judging jerk.
As I also believe that women are as willing and capable to learn "deep stuff" as men, regardless of my (or your) experiences.
Look at Figure 2 on page 7, shows every country has a massive gap where girls do much better on reading and boys do much better on maths relatively. The only effect you see is that more progressive countries the girls perform better and better on both, and the less progressive girls do worse and worse until boys are about as good as them at reading but massively better at math, but everywhere you see the same trend of girls preferring reading and boys preferring math.
You, of course, will ignore that I am sure. I hate it when the menoshpere invades HN, my last save place on the internet. If that continues, I'll just have to leave I guess.
No this is wrong, the studies done has shown that you can make girls do better and boys do worse by priming them. No study done has shown that you can eliminate this gap, just move it towards boys or girls being advantaged.
> You, of course, will ignore that I am sure
No, I read those studies. The stereotype threat paper just show that you can boost girls performance at the cost of boys performance and thus get equal performance at math, not that you can get relative equal performance at math and language. No such paper has shown that you can eliminate the language-math gap between girls and boys, and all data shows that the language-math divide for boys and girls stays the same.
So, all the progressive help to get girls better at math just made girls equal to boys at math, but now girls has an enormous advantage at language because they boosted girls score overall, they didn't make things equal.
Your own link shows that the "math gap" was eliminated in Finland and Sweden, both countries with very equitable education standards, Finland in particular is often cited for having the best education system in the world.
The very study you linked makes the point that male V. female performance in education appears to be linked to differences in how the sexes are treated, not to innate differences between them
There are other studies, but that is the study that you linked.
Perhaps you fell prey to the "reading gap" ?
At the cost of creating a massive language gap. The math-language divide is still there, they just boosted girls score overall they didn't close the gap where girls do relatively better in language and boys math.
So what the poster above saw was that math-language gap in action, women dominated the men in language in their experience, just like the data says we should expect.
The part about making boys worse is something you made up.
If we continue this back and forth, I can play menoshpere / anti-feminism / incel talking piont bingo. I don't want to, so I think we can stop now.
Look at the data yourself, you clearly didn't read the paper, this is the data from the original stereotype threat paper, look at how much worse boys does.
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C5612AQGW9DDN93toeA/articl...
Now can you please stop calling me ignorant, I clearly have better recollection of these studies than you do.
Wait, you read "all the studies done to understand those numbers". Pretty huge task for a photographer, kudos!
Let's rephrase it for the extremely pedandinc and semantic HN crowd: "All the reporting on those studies, and the executive summaries of the studies I read" Better to parse?
Frustrating really, and a lazy, disengenious way of argueing a point.
Feel proven so, if it helps you.
https://science.orf.at/stories/3223967/
But I am sure you will find ways to subsume all HN posters into a perceived partiarchy that is only trying to make your life harder. Go on, I no longer care.
I guess our anecdata varies by the people we surround ourselves with.
Just calling anyone with that experience a misogynist is not helping anyone except your own ego.