More gender equality = less equality of outcome paradox

[stevenho]

Why don't you try reading the article you linked? It takes a pretty solid shot at explaining this, and your paraphrasing of their results, here, is completely incorrect, making it clear you haven't made much effort to read it.

How am I "completely incorrect"? The authors of the paper propose two explanations, one is economic, the other being

The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength

I don't see how both of those make it less of a paradox. The richer (aka more free, and also equal on the equality of opportunity scale) the society, the less women are inclined to get into the traditionally male fields.
In my eyes this indicates that equality of outcome is a concept that is foreign to women that are free to do what they want to do.

Please let us have a civilized discussion without namecalling/labeling.

[Nnyco]

"woman race", i gotta say quality post

[stevenho]

but why do they prefer non-stem careers if that's the case? Are they raised thinking that's not where they belong? So they should go out and get a job that's "for women"?

The 2nd explanation paper proposes it that they are chosing the fields they are stronger at, apparently due to absence of economic pressure (paper quotes numbers indicating men are better at STEM on average while women are better at reading).

[XDurionX]

So in countries with less equality, more women are forced into STEM? Sounds legit.

[Linkedblade]

TLDR: the more cross-gender equality of opportunity the country has, the less women are pursuing careers in "traditionally male" STEM fields.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...urnalCode=pssa

Could it be true that women prefer to be nurses rather than engineers? Is it racist to ask and it offends the women race?

Maybe it's because something natural. Like the fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. And due to that we find ourselves in different career paths.

[Deleted]

Suck it the rest of the world, Scandinavia on top. Apart from Denmark, get it together Denmark.

[Endus]

How am I "completely incorrect"? The authors of the paper propose two explanations, one is economic, the other being

I don't see how both of those make it less of a paradox.

Because you're cherry-picking quotes out of context. One of the points they made is that girls who score high in STEM fields also score high in others, particularly reading, and what you're quoting refers to academic advice that may be gendered in its offering as a result.

You might also note the word "seemingly" in your own quote. That's an indication that not even the authors though the decision was free and rational. Which they made clear if you kept reading.

The richer (aka more free, and also equal on the equality of opportunity scale) the society, the less women are inclined to get into the traditionally male fields.
In my eyes this indicates that equality of outcome is a concept that is foreign to women that are free to do what they want to do.

And that's completely contrary to the article's conclusions. Which was underscoring ways in which girls are still being pushed away from STEM in countries that are supposedly more-gender-equal, and how to redress that based on what their data showed was the tipping point for that decision-making.

[stevenho]

Yeah but you literally never hear anyone talk about construction, only STEM.

Now that you mentioned it, the construction example is a good way to realize why equality of outcome is an abstract idea. Would you really push for equality of outcome in construction or mining or oil rig workforce?

- - - Updated - - -

It definitely says the opposite of what you're claiming here.

The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths that are a personal strength

The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near
universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science contribute to the STEM graduation gap.

Why comment on the paper you didn't even read?

[Endus]

The 2nd explanation paper proposes it that they are chosing the fields they are stronger at, apparently due to absence of economic pressure (paper quotes numbers indicating men are better at STEM on average while women are better at reading).

This is not what the article stated.

Hell, right from the abstract;

Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading (n = 472,242), we show girls performed similarly or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than enrolled.

Girls are performing better in STEM-related studies, but entering STEM fields less, in most countries.

Seriously, read your own supposed source.

[Kasierith]

The factors leading to these raw numbers across so many countries and situations are simply too multifaceted to establish causality in any deterministic way. Which is why even though I am very skeptical about claims that there is systemic oppression and the like, I'm not getting on board the "more egalitarian societies have greater adherence to traditional gender roles" argument. Social studies tend to have very poor external validity, and this sort of issue where you're trying to simplify and account for not one but dozens of different populations and legal systems and cultures has no statistical rigor that one can reasonably rely upon.

[Endus]

Why comment on the paper you didn't even read?

The section you're citing is explaining the gender discrepancy by pointing to expectancy value theory. It's explicitly not suggesting this was a free and uninfluenced choice.

At this point, I'm not sure you understand what expectancy value theory is; it's about cultural expectations and influences affecting one's decisions. If girls think STEM is "boy stuff", that's an expectancy, and they'll be less likely to choose it, and academic advisors more likely to point to their other academic strengths and guide them that way.

It literally states this in the sentences before that one you're quoting out of context.

[Moralgy]

Here is the actual study that isn't behind a paywall.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tics_Education

I'll quote relevant parts and avoid the jargon so people will actually read it.

Thus far, we have shown that the sex differences in STEM graduation rates and in science
literacy as an academic strength become larger with gains in gender equality and that schools
prepare more girls for further STEM study than actually obtain a STEM college degree.
We will now consider one of the factors that might explain why the graduation gap may
be larger in the more gender-equal countries. Countries with the highest gender equality tend to
be welfare states (to varying degrees) with a high level of social security for all its citizens; in
contrast, the less gender-equal countries have less secure and more difficult living conditions,
likely leading to lower levels of life satisfaction (Pittau et al., 2010). This may in turn influence
one’s utility beliefs about the value of science and pursuit of STEM occupations, given these
occupations are relatively high paying and thus provide the economic security that is less certain
in countries that are low in gender equality.

We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girls
are relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sex
differences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways. The differences are expected
based on expectancy value theory and are consistent with prior research (Eccles, 1983; Wang &
Degol, 2013). The differences emerge from a seemingly rational choice to pursue academic paths
that are a personal strength, which also seems to be common academic advice given to students,
at least in the UK (e.g., Gardner, 2016; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service [UCAS],
2015).

The greater realization of these potential sex differences in gender equal nations is the
opposite of what some scholars might expect intuitively, but is consistent with findings for some
other cognitive and social sex differences (e.g., Lippa et al., 2010; Schmitt, 2015). One
possibility is that the liberal mores in these cultures, combined with smaller financial costs of
foregoing a STEM path (below), amplify the influence of intra-individual academic strengths.
The result would be the differentiation of the academic foci of girls and boys during secondary
education and later in college, and across time increasing sex differences in science as an
academic strength and in graduation with STEM degrees.
Whatever the processes that exaggerate these sex differences, they are abated or
overridden in less gender equal countries. One potential reason is that a well-paying STEM
career may appear as an investment in a more secure future. In line with this, our mediation
analysis suggests that OLS partially explains the relation between gender equality and the STEM
graduation gap. Some caution when interpreting this result is needed, though. Mediation analysis
depends on a number of assumptions, some of which can be tested using a sensitivity analysis,
which we conducted (Imai, Keele, & Yamamoto, 2010). The sensitivity analysis gives an
indication of the correlation between the statistical error component in the equations used for
predicting the mediator (OLS) and the outcome (STEM graduation gap); this includes the effect
of unobserved confounders. Given the range of rho values in the sensitivity analysis (Fig. S1), it
is possible that a third variable could be associated with OLS and the STEM graduation gap. A
related limitation is that the sensitivity analysis does not explore confounders that may be related
Gender Equality Paradox – 16
to the causal variable (i.e., GGGI) and the mediator variable. Future research that includes more
potential confounders is needed, but are currently unavailable for each of the countries included
in our analyses.

tldr - Less gender equal countries cause women to make a decision based on need rather than want to achieve a comfortable life. More gender equal countries have safety nets in place that allow people to be more free in what they try to go for to get a comfortable life. The findings are not concrete, but that is what the study hovers around throughout. It also mentions that quality of life is higher in more gender equal countries a few times.

As for your question

Could it be true that women prefer to be nurses rather than engineers?

I have no idea wtf you are on about with this question since it is not mentioned in the study. Are you trying to push some agenda here or something?

Rip my post, it got post 40'd

[Dziubla]

It definitely says the opposite of what you're claiming here.

we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries...

Right. Maybe top 1% of girls, compared to some mentally deficient boys. Take average boy and average girl, and throw your conclusions out the window.

[Kasierith]

Look at Algeria, Tunisia, turkey, Indonesia, Albania, and UAE. Wow...what are they doing differently than the western world? o.O

Back when I was studying sociology, the argument made was that gender roles were defined by the inherent value that the culture placed on each role. So those societies which value STEM fields less tend to not have the same barriers to entry as those with low equality but high value of science. So if a Western humanitarian comes and opens a school, they really don't care all that much.

[Endus]

Right. Maybe top 1% of girls, compared to some mentally deficient boys. Take average boy and average girl, and throw your conclusions out the window.

I'm not sure what you think you're going to gain by throwing out credible sociological data on performance levels to insert your own delusional and misogynistic fantasies.

[Kasierith]

Right. Maybe top 1% of girls, compared to some mentally deficient boys. Take average boy and average girl, and throw your conclusions out the window.

This is.... no. Women perform better in the averages, men perform better at the very top levels of performance.

[Darththeo]

The article does support the statement of the OP, however he ignores the last statement:

"A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects."

Essentially, girls are more interested in high paying fields in areas where life-quality is poorer ... I wonder why? If you can have a decent life quality doing what you want, you are going to do that instead of the better paying.

[Cradyz]

So there actually are biological factors that push both men and women into certain directions that are distinct from the various social, cultural and economic factors. This result just shows that the biological factors weigh more heavily than psychologists had thought they would some time ago.

The more 'equal' a society becomes, like the scandinavian countries, the more social, cultual and economic boundaries are removed, allowing people to choose more freely. Though everybody is an individual ofc, capable of making a wide variety of life choices we are all still bound in some measure to biology. So women in these liberated countries can choose whatever field they want, so they coose the one they feel they want to be a part of. That feeling is guided by biology and pushes them towards the care sector for instance. It's all generally spreaking ofc.

[Kasierith]

The article does support the statement of the OP, however he ignores the last statement:

"A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects."

Essentially, girls are more interested in high paying fields in areas where life-quality is poorer ... I wonder why? If you can have a decent life quality doing what you want, you are going to do that instead of the better paying.

How high paying are normal STEM fields in those areas, though?

[stevenho]

This is not what the article stated.

Hell, right from the abstract;

Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading (n = 472,242), we show girls performed similarly or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than enrolled.

Girls are performing better in STEM-related studies, but entering STEM fields less, in most countries.

Seriously, read your own supposed source.

I am directly quoting the "Explanations" section on page 15. The very first sentence reads:

We propose that when boys are relatively better in science and mathematics while girls
are relatively better at reading than other academic areas, there is the potential for substantive sex
differences to emerge in STEM-related educational pathways

- - - Updated - - -

So there actually are biological factors that push both men and women into certain directions that are distinct from the various social, cultural and economic factors. This result just shows that the biological factors weigh more heavily than psychologists had thought they would some time ago.

The more 'equal' a society becomes, like the scandinavian countries, the more social, cultual and economic boundaries are removed, allowing people to choose more freely. Though everybody is an individual ofc, capable of making a wide variety of life choices we are all still bound in some measure to biology. So women in these liberated countries can choose whatever field they want, so they coose the one they feel they want to be a part of. That feeling is guided by biology and pushes them towards the care sector for instance. It's all generally spreaking ofc.

This is what I am understanding this paper is suggesting. But since people keep saying it is wrong, I am trying to understand their own take on it.