[loramin]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Loramin you ever seen a black baby dance? You ever seen a horse give birth to a little baby horse? This is called genetic inheritance and it has to do with evolution. It’s how animals pass on survival instincts.

Wow Mick, that's a new low even for you. There is absolutely no science whatsoever behind your "genetic black baby dance" theory: it's pure and simple ignorant racism (just like craniometry).

Originally Posted by NachtMystium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Women do not need the approval of men to get involved in STEM fields. I will even argue, even if they were "discouraged" into applying to STEM fields(since when have you heard a modern man discourage a woman into going into this field? in fact it's the opposite).

On another note, gender roles have done nothing but good for society. Scientifically speaking, gender roles as they are now, are paramount to happiness and social functionality.

Luxury as it creeps into the "Strong men make good times, good times create weak men" I feel we're going into this phase and we will repeat it.

"Nothing but good" huh? So the women in Arab countries who can't leave the house without a male guardian ... that's good? Or the fact that women have been male property for most of human history ... that's good? Maybe if you're the gender that gets to do the owning, but not so much for the people being owned.

As for men discouraging women from STEM ... obviously it's not the way it was back in (say) the 20's, when men actually told women "you can't do _____." Back then it was explicit; nowadays it's (usually) far more subtle

Try to imagine if you went into a classroom and it was 95% female: would you feel out of place? What if every class in your major was like that?

Or what about long before you go to college: think about all the female scientists and engineers in movies. Studies have shown that only around 20% of scientists in movies are female, and even when women scientists are shown they're more often foils to male protagonists. And then there's:

Originally Posted by https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24170/title/Female-scientists-on-the-big-screen/

Flicker has written about the cliché of the male scientist, who comes in various guises. He can be a hard and diligent worker, sometimes obsessively enthusiastic ... he tends not to be particularly attractive, typically resplendent in glasses, a lab coat, and tangled hair .... But it's with looks that the discrepancy becomes really obvious. The female film scientist tends to be gorgeous. In Flicker's words, she is "remarkably beautiful and, compared with her qualifications, unbelievably young. She has a model's body -- thin, athletic, perfect -- is dressed provocatively and is sometimes 'distorted' by wearing glasses."

In other words, there are no men saying "you can't be a scientist", there's just a whole society teaching us lessons through the movies we watch, lessons like "women don't belong in science, they belong looking pretty".

Thankfully, society is complex and we've evolved to the point where we also teach conflicting lessons like "grrrl power", which is why we have the women we do have in STEM (vs. almost none back in the 20's). We've made progress, but women are also still far under-represented, and it's not because "the man" is literally keeping women out of STEM, it's because of our society and the lessons it teaches us.