Trump signs bill to encourage women in STEM fields

[Yuujin]

I agree that influences in how we're brought up play a major part in it. But where we seem to disagree is on how much it matters that women are brought up to take lower paying fields than men.

Maybe the solution is to increase the pay in those fields?

[Doctor Funkenstein]

And how is a bill going to do that?

The same way their new ACA replacement is going to.

[PLACEHOLDER]

[Wells]

Maybe the solution is to increase the pay in those fields?

Seems more practical to adjust the way we raise kids honestly than to centrally manage wages like that.

[Belize]

Going to install washer, dryers and ovens in the Unvierisites and Laboratories. Zing! I went there!

I giggled a little, then thought about the washeria on my campus and almost vomited.

Shit is gross dude. For a place about cleaning, it's pretty gnarly.

[Yuujin]

Seems more practical to adjust the way we raise kids honestly than to centrally manage wages like that.

Absolutely, but it just feels like a band aid. Hey honey, I know you love your teach and want to teach because of her but engineers make a lot more than your teachers do so maybe you should go play with that Simple Machines kit I bought you.

[Miztickow]

I would love to applaud this but it seems this is just for show the details are yet to be hashed.

This sounds like EVERYTHING ELSE he's signed so far. Legally, they either don't mean shit or are blatantly unconstitutional.

[Arewn]

I don't see any reason to be necessary beyond academic curiosity, but why women disproportionately make up fields that have lower take home pay is worth exploring.

There are biological differences between the genders (child bearing, physical capabilities, differences in hormones that affect behavior), this sometimes manifests or are ultimately tied to differences in interests.

And there are many things that can be associated with lower pay which women tend to seek. Stability, flexibility, benefits, lower risk, low physical demand (higher paying construction jobs vs lower paying service industry jobs. Kinda outside the STEM discussion, but relevant to the comment).
I don't think, at a societal scale, its that we're "teaching women to take lower paying jobs". Especially considering how successful women are in education, and how much incentive/encouragement/programs there have already been for women to enter STEM.

And as far as the thread goes. No plan, obvious lip services.

[Canpinter]

I don't see any reason to be necessary beyond academic curiosity, but why women disproportionately make up fields that have lower take home pay is worth exploring.

You see you have reversed it tho, its men prioritizing pay above things like work/life balance and job fulfillment that cause them to go into higher paying jobs.

[Dreknar20]

how much of a pathetic sad sack of shit do you need to be that you need a law for encouragement?

[Wells]

There are biological differences between the genders (child bearing, physical capabilities, differences in hormones that affect behavior), this sometimes manifests or are ultimately tied to differences in interests.

Sexual dimorphism in humans is really over stated when it comes to something as specific as profession.

I don't think, at a societal scale, its that we're "teaching women to take lower paying jobs". Especially considering how successful women are in education, and how much incentive/encouragement/programs there have already been for women to enter STEM.

And as far as the thread goes. No plan, obvious lip services.

Except female participation in STEM fields has been growing for some time now as society has really started liberalizing these last 30-40 years. If it were sexual dimorphism we wouldn't expect to see something like a 25% increase in share of STEM degrees held by women.

[Yuujin]

Especially considering how successful women are in education, and how much incentive/encouragement/programs there have already been for women to enter STEM.

When you say education, do you mean the field of education, or how effectively they can be educated?

[Baelic]

That's such a fucking joke. Do you know the names of any other rank and file engineers who worked at NASA at that time? No? Yet you know the names of those three because of a movie made solely because of the "no one knows about women in science!" nonsense, which has the end result of actually making them more known.

(The funniest part is that many of the "worst" things that were portrayed in that movie didn't even actually happen, or were far less of an issue.)

Do YOU know? That said. You're right, I don't. Doesn't mean that it hasn't inspired me to learn more.

[provaporous]

Lol at your avatar, you coward of a trump supporter.

On topic, yeah - im needing details before i trust any word from Dump. Funny, as if you realky were a (snicker) "indipendent voter" you should really care about the actual details than a sales pitch...

so adversarial, is it so hard to believe people would vote for someone who lived amongst the liberal Hollywood elite, saw how corrupt they were and ran for president to fix the real problems in society? Now child abusers are getting put away at record pace, criminal illegal immigrants are being sent back to their home countries, illegal immigration is down, and law and order is starting to return to society. Pretty soon Hillary will be indited for the destruction of subpoenaed evidence and the globalists will be on the run.

[Wells]

so adversarial, is it so hard to believe people would vote for someone who lived amongst the liberal Hollywood elite, saw how corrupt they were and ran for president to fix the real problems in society? Now child abusers are getting put away at record pace, criminal illegal immigrants are being sent back to their home countries, illegal immigration is down, and law and order is starting to return to society. Pretty soon Hillary will be indited for the destruction of subpoenaed evidence and the globalists will be on the run.

I'm constantly amazed that these people will try to paint a man who lives in a literal golden tower in Manhattan built on wealth he inherited as somehow not "the elite".

[Canpinter]

Sexual dimorphism in humans is really over stated when it comes to something as specific as profession.


Except female participation in STEM fields has been growing for some time now as society has really started liberalizing these last 30-40 years. If it were sexual dimorphism we wouldn't expect to see something like a 25% increase in share of STEM degrees held by women.

its not an all or nothing situation, women tend to favor a more balanced work/home life, combine this with mens higher predisposition to be seen as a strong provider lead then to persure high pay/status jobs that offer less balance. these are both socially taught and biologically supported tendency.

[Wells]

its not an all or nothing situation, women tend to favor a more balanced work/home life, combine this with mens higher predisposition to be seen as a strong provider lead then to persure high pay/status jobs that offer less balance. these are both socially taught and biologically supported tendency.

I mean sure, sexual dimorphism probably plays a role at some level, but its pretty obviously seriously exaggerated when people want to claim it explains the differences we see today.

[Underverse]

Sexual dimorphism in humans is really over stated when it comes to something as specific as profession.

I tend to agree that sexual dimorphism is pretty weak in humans overall. However, I think the fact that women have a choice where men do not - in that women can choose between creating and nourishing life, and focusing entirely on improving their skillset and obtaining resources - contributes pretty significantly to the choices that individuals make. Men have one path forward, and that is to acquire resources to be used on others (or themselves, if they're selfish). It therefore makes sense that men would almost unilaterally choose to enter into highly competitive fields. To reiterate, women can choose how much effort they want to put into either of the two paths they can take. What I find interesting here is that one of these paths has recently become more moral and more desirable than the other; to be specific, spending your life climbing a corporate ladder has become more moral than creating and nurturing new human life, and I think that's a tragedy.

Except female participation in STEM fields has been growing for some time now as society has really started liberalizing these last 30-40 years. If it were sexual dimorphism we wouldn't expect to see something like a 25% increase in share of STEM degrees held by women.

To be fair, a good portion of this increase is probably due to active recruitment, and not just passive diffusion of women into these fields. There are many, many programs and awards for women in science. Of tangential note, there are none specifically for men.

[Canpinter]

I mean sure, sexual dimorphism probably plays a role at some level, but its pretty obviously seriously exaggerated when people want to claim it explains the differences we see today.

Give people more freedom to chose what they want rather then what they have to and these preferences will only get more pronounced. its part of the reason Iran has more female engineering students then Denmark, the significant economic pressure in Iran incentives more women to go into the high paying fields, while Denmarks strong welfare system allows women more free choice.

[Belize]

I do love the irony of people bitching about Affirmative Action cheer this on, since it's proposed by "their side".

[PC2]

I do love the irony of people bitching about Affirmative Action cheer this on, since it's proposed by "their side".

I don't think it's AA, such as a quota, which is terrible and anti-merit. It's just encouraging them in order to form a positive association with STEM.