/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6596983
why do we need to?

>>6596983
>How do we create demand?
No

>>6596983
>get rid of math. Math is hard and boring.

>Get better looking men in STEM.

Lazy fat privileged slimecunts should stay out of STEM if thinking is too hard..

>>6596983
>How do we fix the problem with women and STEM?

Firstly, there is no problem. Men & Women were designed/evolved differently. The solution to the "problem" would therefore be to design/evolve new women.

>>6596983
Srs pls go, no one cares about this shit.
Let's talk instead about GRW, the abrahanov bohm effect, the roverbal theorem, the LHC, group theory, Lie algebra, etc.

>>6596983
>The three biggest things that turn women off STEM
>>it's too hard
>>it's too boring
>>the men are too ugly/geeky
I don't believe this.

STEM women I've talked to usually say that they think they have faced some form of discrimination over their career.
I think this is mostly true.

>>6597020
Please be trolling

>>6597030
>Let's talk instead about GRW, the abrahanov bohm effect, the roverbal theorem, the LHC, group theory, Lie algebra
Point me to the threads, brother

>>6596983
>lower the standards for women
This one can't work, you can't get an uneducated person for a STEM job.

>increase scholarships for women
>implying this doesn't already occur

>hiring that preference women
>implying this doesn't already occur

>promotions that preference women
Promotion is to do with merit and ability to take on additional roles, you can't give an unachieving person a promotion.

You can't give people what they don't want and women don't want STEM degrees or jobs as much as men do.

>>6596983

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/columns/launchings/launchings_09_09.html
Women in mathematics dropped from 47% to 44% but hav been largely stable. Those are really good numbers. Really the only fields you've got to worry about are plebtier fields like physics, engineering, and comp sci.
>it's too hard
None of those fields are hard.

>it's too boring
Please, those fields are practically playing with lego.


The actual problems are.
>Socially inept autists that lash out at women every chance they get.
>Overt homosexuality (engineering).
>Field is marketted to useless people who don't want to grow up (comp-sci). I.e. "I want to make video games", "I want to learn hacking", "wanna do something with computers".

The obvious solution.
>Remove mathematics from STEM so that they are no longer associated with that crapboat.

>>6597020
>designed
>implying creationism >>>/x/

>evolved differently
>implying male and female are different species >>>/lit/

>>6597052
10/10

>>6597033
>STEM women I've talked to usually say that they think they have faced some form of discrimination over their career.
Those are the women who aren't turned off STEM, though.

>>6597052
Take Chemistry with you

>The math is too hard. Get rid of the math.

The career is math. You need to know the math.

>>6597052
Every fucking time...

Talking about where the data comes from: "bachelor's degrees in Mathematics or Statistics"

Talking about what the data means: "bachelor's degrees in Mathematics earned by women"

Yes, there is some advanced work done in statistics. No, that is not what women getting a bachelor's in statistics are generally doing. These are mostly girls who found arithmetic pleasant, aiming for a ticket to a safe, easy office job where they make good money shuffling around numbers without having to think hard.

Everyone in STEM is now obligated to get >>>/fit/ huge! It's time mutherfuckers! This is clearly the only option:

Lure girls in with muscles, keep up with larger pay checks.

Any response is invalid. What is your excuse for not benching lmao 2 plate STEM majors? Why aren't you helping prompt lasting societal change?

>>6597083
>Look at all these claims I'm making and accept them at face value.

>>6596983
>How do we fix the problem with women and STEM?
Turn them into men.

>>6597052
This is what /sci/ actually believes.

>>6597095
What? You really think that mathematics is some mysterious exception to women tending to avoid all of the fields where difficult math is required?

They get these figures by lumping in math-ish degrees that don't actually require challenging math, and lead to careers where you don't actually use challenging math.

>>6596983

I'm not seeing a problem here. If most women dont want to be engineers, why should we force them to? After all: it's clearly POSSIBLE for women to pursue STEM degrees if they actually want to, since the population of women STEM graduates is nonzero.

Not every career path is going to have exactly equal proportions of men and women: there will always be outliers that attract one gender more than the other. Deal with it.

>>6597107
>What? You really believe that women tending to avoid all of the fields where math is required is true on faith?

>mathematics degrees involve less math than non-mathematics degrees

hahahahaha

>>6597107
I like how delusional this anon is. There's an article that's trying to spread panic about the percentage of women in mathematics dropping and this guy claims it's inflating the numbers to make it look like there are more women in math then there really are.

>>6597099
Brilliant!

>>6597117
Are you completely fucking illiterate, or what?

They get the relatively high statistics for women taking degrees in "mathematics" by lumping in every major in "statistics". This was the point under discussion.

Most schools have some pride in their "mathematics" programs, but there are some very watered down "statistics" programs.

Stop offering:
>secretary work
>store work
to women with degrees.

Stop offering:
>Fashion
>Most humanities
>psychology scholarships
There, problem solved.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/scalliwag/201208/engineering-the-smart-career-choice-people-who-love-psychology

This website has some good stats, the number of Psychology graduates per year is about half the jobs available, and those jobs use Doctoral degrees first. Only about 25% of psychologists work in their field, where even if you have a Doctorate, you'll be making 30k at a non-field job vs an Engineer working 55k job with a Bachelors. Entry, even if a Psych major FINDS a 30k job available. Meanwhile 70k engineers try and fill 1.4 million engineering jobs. The income media for a Bachelor's in Engineering is 86k, while a Psych Doctor would make 67k.

I'm glad China started dropping shit courses from their funding pool, I hope America does it within my lifetime.

>>6597020
This is true.the division of labor is different in males and females in many animals.
Lions, bees, gorillas, are all "sexist" like that.
Women have better social skills and men have better spacial functions. If you doubt this at all raise a few humans. The differences show up early and they are almost carved in stone.
It's a good thing,get used to it.

>>6597135
Great pic.

>>6597135
That pic. I love it.

>>6596983
All the effort to increase women in STEM is complete bullshit

I fell in love with physics for personal reasons, which would not have changed in any way whatsoever if I met "discrimination" (which is probably also greatly exaggerated).
>the men are too ugly/geeky
please... At least men exist in the field for them, so in that regard women have it WAAAAY better than we do.
I mean shit.. If I could be doing physics with 90% females who share my interest that's definitely better than it being a sausage fest even if they were ugly.

So I don't buy that it's 'hard on them' at all. That's just an excuse

>>6596983
Either admit that women and men are fundamentally different or get off /sci/, the pseudoscience of sociology doesn't belong here.

>tfw only 3/12 were woman in my Statics
>tfw only 1/6 were in my Circuits/Dynamics
>tfw she's already married with kids
>she's from Peru and was logging, coal mining, and already had college courses that didn't transfer when she came
>tfw Calc teacher (who went through C classes) started feeding me back stories about her husband's engineering work when I was chatting with her one day when I never expect anyone to feed me back engineering stories
plz, I just don't want to be alone

The average woman is told for her entire childhood by their parents to get pretty, to find a husband... This hardwires her brain to think it's okay to fail, to be bad at math etc. Parents are much stricter with men in this aspect.

Lowering standards for women perpetuates that too. There's no short-term solution. The only way is for parents to treat women equally as mentioned. And it takes a shitload of time.

>>6597087
>Mandatory gym sessions every day at every stem job
>Zyzz becomes new king of /sci/
>/sci/ and /fit/ merged into single board

>>6597030
>the AB effect
my well educated nigga

>>6597156
> plz, I just don't want to be alone
why?
You'll have the pick of the litter besides having below average looks

>>6597157
Except that this is disproven.
http://vimeo.com/19707588

>>6597052

Depends on the field of math, math austists want to try to gloat about how hard math is, but only pure math is hard. Statistics, applied math, education math, etc are on par or easier than engineering or physics.

This is why more woman can succeed in these fields, you only need to take 1 or 2 hard courses and can do applied math the rest of the time.

Hire sexier dudes.

>>6597125
You are just making claims and appealing to people's ignorance and preconceptions.

Here are some UK stats.
http://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/files/useruploads/files/wise_stats_document_final.pdf

The general trend is that women prefer mathematics over engineering and comp-sci at high school, undergrad, and postgraduate levels. The physical sciences (bio/chem/physics) are in fairly healthy numbers as well.

Here is an article on a US census report.
http://qz.com/122766/more-women-are-going-into-math-and-science-but-bypassing-tech-careers/

>Women represent almost half of all US workers, and now hold 47% of mathematical jobs and 61% of social science jobs such as psychologist and economist, but there are “significant underrepresentation” elsewhere: 27% of computer professionals and 13% of engineers. The computer field is important because it has grown to represent almost half of all STEM occupations.

and the actual report
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-24.pdf

>>6597171
If that were the case then you would have more if not as many women in engineering fields as you do in mathematics.

Fact is that "too hard" isn't the reason that women avoid engineering.

>>6597178

You only have to be good at one type of autistic thinking for math, for engineering you many types.

>>6597168
You see, the women in the video aren't claiming they're being oppressed or anything, which is the problem I was addressing. My point wasn't that there should be 50/50 in STEM, but that women should be incentivated for it as much as men by parents. Then it's all equal. The rest is up to their choice.

>>6597182
>Engineer has resorted to claiming that it must be the case that Engineering is harder than math and that is why women avoid it.

Well, I guess that's multiple types of autism for you.

Women are whores man ; they are offered pretty well paid jobs without the need for any actual training -> of couse they'll have them ;
Does science offer well paid jobs without any training / education ? Does science even offer jobs ?

>>6597168
I stopped watching when he walked into a huge room full of engineers. It was obvious where the scene was going.

http://youtu.be/woJHumzHLMQ?t=31s

>>6597193

Well there are woman in engineering, but they're always not white girls. Asian girls, indian girls, eastern european slavics, just not white girls.

At most schools engineering demands more from the student, and girls are less likely to want to give up their social lives.

>>6597204
>At most schools engineering demands more from the student
Moreso than math? Is this nigga serious?

>>6597193

Broken-brained weirdos that live on the internet do everything they can to perpetuate the myth that only broken-brained weirdos that live on the internet are the ones that truly "understand" science.

>>6597208
Math has the luxury of being completely logical.
It's probably the easiest of the STEM majors.

>>6597138
>>6597142
You're underestimating how early gender conditioning takes place. The pic doesn't prove anything.

>>6597216
You think this is a legitimate argument. How embarassing for you.

>>6597208

Math majors take 1 hard class, that they is so fucking hard like omg like real analysis.

I take like 40 hard courses competing against autistic asians and indians for grades, while you get to live in your fairy land proving properties about vector spaces. This is why woman can easily get a math degree easier.

>>6597225
I studied math. It's not that hard, just kinda boring
Google agrees with me too.

>>6597229
>40 dumbed down "for engineers" courses
fixed

>>6597234
they aren't dumbed down, but they definitely go for breadth versus depth

>>6597239
They are totally dumbed down. You work in special cases that play a lot nicer than the general case and allow you to employ lots of shortcuts and handwaving that don't always work otherwise. The amount and level of dumbing down varies a lot from engineering field to engineering field.

For a simple example one can consider how electrical engineers use Kirchoff's circuit laws (special case of Faraday's law) to compue the properties of circuits, or for an even simpler example think about all those times you treat dy/dx as a fraction.

>>6596983
Honestly in my chemical engineering class there's a pretty fair amount of women, and attractive smart ones at that. From my point of view women are becoming more accepted in STEM and I'm actually kind of jazzed.

>>6596983

Women are the problem here, and I'm not even a misoginist. If they want more women in STEM they should stop talking about it and put in the goddamn work.

>>6597258
OHHHHHHH
you're only talking about gen ed math.
yeah they're total crap.

> for an even simpler example think about all those times you treat dy/dx as a fraction.
you mean never?
pretty sure the last time I did that was high school calculus when studying "implicit" differentiation

> mfw thought you were talking shit about my high level control theory class.

>>6597263
>and put in the goddamn work.
They are. Refer to.
>>6597174

>>6597087
But I have already achieved glorious otter mode and have classic aryan looks. My biotech program is 50% women (20% viable). What do?

Maybe let women do what they want to do?

There's already no barriers, why subsidize it? Are we going to subsidize men in formerly female dominated professions as well?

>>6597150
Cultural differences are important nonetheless. It's hard to prove, but it's quite probable many women don't choose STEM degrees simply because of the bad fame STEM degrees have gotten over the years as being male-dominated and 'nerdy', opposite to 'cool' or whatever pop culture thinks desirable. It's a self-perpetuating myth.
Thinking that the status quo is natural and therefore 'unchangeable' and 'good' is, to put it in a way, *so* 19th century. Had we kept that view, women wouldn't even be able to get into college at all.

>>6597288
If the perception of what it is to be STEM major is the largest obstacle, then that is extremely minor.

And it also suggest that rather than pushing more women in STEM, we need to focusing on the real problem of major STEM 'cooler.'

>>6597299
*making STEM 'cooler'

zz

>>6597278
I doubt economic concerns are the reason why women aren't getting STEM degrees, but scholarships are an excellent way to attract women who are interested, yet not fully convinced (due to the 'geeky' or some other preconception against STEM degrees).

>>6597288
There is no scientific evidence behind what you are saying. Just because it's trendy to think that all humans are the same and everything comes from environmental causes doesn't make it true.

>>6597052
>Overt homosexuality (engineering)

>>6596983
We need to somehow show women that we won't accept them as bed mates unless they're either high performing physically or prestigious or rich.

We need to exclude women from hanging out with the cool girls that get all the boys so that they develop a stronger autism
and start tinkering with mechanics, electronics or their computer all day, seeking mental challenges to fill the cold void of their cockless vaginas.

>>6597306
This debate ended over a hundred years ago. Nature and nurture are both important for basically anything humans think or do. Just because women don't enjoy putting their left hemisphere to work as much as men doesn't mean we should completely disregard all environmental factors, like peer pressure and culture.

>>6596983
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1883
I think this is much of the problem.

Girls aren't encouraged to build and create things.

>>6597324
>Left hemisphere
Yeah you just lost the last bit of credence you had.

>>6597328
>failing at basic text interpretation
>/sci/
Replace with 'don't enjoy boy things', if it makes you feel better.

>>6597325

interesting theory but you do know what kind of toys most engineers play with?

>>6597366
computers?

>>6596983
>How do we fix the problem with women and STEM?
Nothing needs fucking fixing, there are roles men preform in society and roles woman preform.

>>6597352
I'm not that guy but the idea of left and right hemisphere types of thinking is widely regarded as pseudoscience. Also, you're wrong.
>>6597174

Unless of course by "enjoy boy things" you're specifically talking about engineering.

>>6597373
>engineers
Pic was related

>>6597366
dragon dildos

decrease womens' rights is another thing
the less equal a society is, the more women go into engineering
70% of Iran's engineers are women

>politicizing science
Why. The people who are interested in science should go to science and the people who aren't interested in science should not. If you want more people in STEM (more people also includes more women) then the best option would be to show them a lot of cool shit you can do with math and science as a child. Not just Bill Nye, but fuck I don't know. Honestly, math is probably the key here. Get people to like math and they will most likely like science too.

>>6597366
Lol not many, and those that do don't do it at a young age

>>6597577
Well sure, but the issue is that girls don't really get encouraged to be interested in this stuff in the same way boys do.

>>6597033
I was literally rejected for my course at Bristol in favour of a girl with LOWER GRADES THAN ME. I got A*BB for my A*AB offer - this chick got ABB and was accepted because of an initiative to get more girls on STEM courses.

>>6597589
christ, this is the type of shit that people's lives depend on, you can't allow that shit to happen

>>6597221
Do people think that pic demonstrates anything? I just find the imagery of a little girl tucking two toy cars into bed very amusing.

>>6597229

Take real pure math classes.

Biochemistry student here. Biochemistry is full of chicks. Biology and chemistry too.

Dunno if those are proper STEM. Sometime I feel like I am just a honorary STEM, sort of like how Japanese and Slovaks were honorary Aryans in WWII.

>>6596983
>What else can we do?
We don't.

>The three biggest things that turn women off
>the men are too ugly/geeky

I don't know, but to me the obvious solution to this problem is to add a clause that only good looking man should be allowed to study physics/chem/engineering, no?
Additionally to the exam, we just have a hiring jury of 5 or so women, who judge face/body of the male applicant and decide if he's allowed to study. Problem fixed.

>>6597566
any explanation on this ? why would women suddenly do math if they are in a shit country ?

>>6597636
get married isn't a viable choice to have a wealthy life, since most men are poor in this country, so they have to actually earn their own money, hence studying maths and science

>>6596983
What problem?

>>6597143
>working with a majority women
>ever a good idea
It's a dramafest 24/7.

>>6597204
>eastern european slavics, just not white girls.
What.

>>6597659
white means germanic.

all other races are untermensch

Why should we bother at all?

See pic related.

Clearly men and women are different and like different things. We're wasting all this time trying to get women into STEM when most of them simply aren't interested.

>>6597052
Top notch post anon. There are lots of girls in both my pure and applied maths subjects
>>6597171
>Engineering is on par with applied maths.
This is not true. Lots of engineers have taken applied maths with me especially those doing "hard" engineering like EE I've enjoyed watching them all drop out or fail.
I'm not an applied maths major just saying this either

>>6596983
Make men in science more attractive.

Not kidding. Guys do things all the time because there be hot bitches. Girls must surely think the same way.

There should be a six-pack scholarship and new clothes grant for everybody in STEM. Girls would flock to the field. Hot guys, new clothes AND I get to be a muthafuckin role model pushing the boundaries of human knowledge. SOLD. Hell, you'd probably get more men going into STEM too if you did this.

>>6597669
>See pic related.

That shows quite a bit of change over time in addition to showing some steady patterns.

The error you are making is in thinking the two things are mutually exclusive. i.e. the fact that men and women are not equally represented in all fields is not necessarily indicative of a problem, HOWEVER that doesn't mean no problems exist.

>>6597777
That's not what attracts women you fucktards. Women crave for social and empathic interactions, hence their dominance in fields like social sciences, psychology, teaching, health and social services, etc.
It's not about difficulty or attractiveness, you can't solve this problem by thinking like men.

A good move would be to make science and technology "closer to people" by finding ways to use science and technology to help people INDIVIDUALLY : like medicine for example.

>>6597777
Funny enough, a fellow grad student was giving some girlie undergrads a tour of our chem research facilities. Me and another handsome young chap are working on a delicate reaction. The girls seem giddy, and the tour guide opens the door to let us know that the undergrad girls liked what "chemistry looked like".
>mfw I may have directly influenced some girls to become chemists just from being so handsome

>>6597777
Quads are truths.

if STEM majors weren't as autistic then there wouldn't be a problem

if STEM majors didn't think they were Jesus Christ just because they can solve baby integrals then there wouldn't be a problem

>>6597814
Then be a STEM major and and show them how it's done.

Report back when you get a job.

>>6597110

As a woman, I would like to say that this is all bullshit. Different women like different things. The guy who said women like "social and empathetic interactions" was close. I happen to love social studies and I also happen to be a history major, but my best friend (also a woman) is a computer science major who hates history, English, and children. I also think that different women like different things, as you can see from the example of me and my friends.

My best advice is to just ask a girl to go see tfios and then take her to Checkers for dinner. (everyone loves Augustus waters and Checker's.)

>>6597922
Just so you know, and no insult is meant by this, but personal anecdotes are not considered objective evidence.

>>6597636
>engineering
>doing math
Choose exactly one

>>6597608
Lel, 9/10 analogy

>>6597669
In that picture science and math are both at near 50%. Engineering and comp sci are the only ones struggling. I think we can conclusively say that the problem isn't that women think math is hard.

>>6597928
Not that anon but this applies to the other guy as well.

>>6596983

>>6597947
Statistics are not anecdotal evidence. I don't know the men/women ratio for nurses but I'd bet it's pretty close to 0.

>>6597922
I'm not saying that gender defines personality, just that it plays a role as big as education, heredity and environment, even though none of these are independent.

>>6597174
None of this data argues against the position that women are taking more education that can be categorized as math because there are easier options in it, where you can avoid actual difficult math, in the same way that women flock to biology and avoid physics.

It's just more of the same lumping things together into vague categories which leave it unclear what's actually going on.

When you lump biology together with physics into "science" or "natural sciences", you get a misleading picture of female participation. There's a tendency to assume that the group under study is spread more or less evenly through the category you're presenting statistics on.

The relatively high statistics for women in math, compared to other fields such as computer science, engineering, and physics which are distinguished primarily by having lots of difficult math, seems like a special exception, and is held up as evidence that something other than difficult math (such as discrimination, socialization, and the crude rudeness of men in male-dominated groups) is keeping women away from these fields.

Well, that sort of claim has important implications for policy, and needs to be looked at very closely. If you look at college level math education, you do find some easy paths through. There is the equivalent in math of biology in science, where it does belong in the same category, but basically any average person could pass through it. Women taking math majors are not generally preparing to compete for careers as research mathematicians.

>>6597956
The ordering is correct but the percentages on this graph are all wrong. Update it with these stats
>>6597174
>>6597052
>>6597669

>>6597959
>I don't know the men/women ratio for nurses but I'd bet it's pretty close to 0.
This is not statistics anon. It is exactly anecdotal evidence.

>>6597967
Yeah, no. Anecdotal evidence is "My father is a nurse". Statistics is "90% of nurses are women".

Women don't want to work 80 hour weeks

>>6597966
The UK data splits the science fields into physics, chem, and biology. Look at those charts again. Similarly the census data isn't talking about education, it's talking about JOBS. The percentage of women in physics is actually also pretty high and close to mathematics.

Your post makes it obvious that you did not read the data nor can you into science. Please return to /lit/ where your social science tier arguments are accepted.

>>6597967
>>6597971
Here you go
http://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupations.pdf

>>6597971
>Statistics is "90% of nurses are women".

Ugh, using maths again... STOP IT! Maths are antisocial.

>>6597971
Yea, anecdotal evidence is "I would think that nurses are almost all women". Statistics are "here are some statistics pulled from some census data".

>>6597975
Holy shit your post popped up as soon as I finished typing.

>wanting to work with females
>ever

seriously who the fuck wants that

>>6597979
Obviously not Engineers and apparently not comp sci.

>>6597974
>The UK data splits the science fields into physics, chem, and biology.
I never implied that it didn't. You have a real problem with reading comprehension.

I was making the comparison that with science degrees, we get this biology/physics split, but we don't see who's taking the easy courses to get their math degree.

>Similarly the census data isn't talking about education, it's talking about JOBS.
Again, you thinking this is some kind of refutation of what I was saying is just your failure to read and understand words.

>>6597978
Again, even saying that you don't have the evidence right here is not anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is using an example as a proof, that's not what I did.

This is anecdotal evidence >>6597922

This is laziness >>6597959

Women in the science field tend to get annoying. Seriously, they feel the need to all the time point out that they are a woman doing mans work, shit like that.

>>6597978
>>Anecdotal evidence is "My father is a nurse".
>Yea, anecdotal evidence is "I would think that nurses are almost all women".
You really don't grasp the difference?

Anecdotal evidence is an anecdote or collection of anecdotes. Do you know what an "anecdote" is? It's not the same thing as a general impression based on experience. It's a story about something that happened in one particular case.

"Anecdotal evidence" is simply evidence composed of anecdotes. It's not a catch-all term for anything that's not statistical data, such as informal opinion.

The problem with women in STEM is the women.
They want all of the benefits without any of the responsibility.
What ends up happening is debts double due to paying them and the work income due to only half the workforce (men) doing actual work that brings in the money.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. Just because men enroll in stem fields at a higher rate doesn't mean they graduate, nor does it mean that even if they graduate they have a fucking clue what is going on. The people who make strides in stem subjects are all outliers - the contributions of most of the engineers outside of academia is not consistent, being dependent on unpredictable factors such as the luck of being part of an exciting project, or having good teammates. Many people who graduate from stem fields aren't working in stem fields, and many people with Liberal Arts degrees become quite successful in stem jobs.
Also the correlation between men and stem field jobs may be like Jews in the Movie business in the late 20th century - those who went into the field had some connection with those who were in the field - a better answer than "its a conspiracy!".
Women have only significantly been in the workforce since the 1980's, and had no connections with the people who came out of academia and started the tech revolution.
I personally know three women who could kick all your asses when it comes to math, including a West Point prof., so even the suggestion of innate differences seems a bit premature.

The companies who both promote diversity, and listen to their employees (you need both) are going to be the ones who are more successful. After this whole Taliban inspired anti-feminism thing blows over, we can probably get back to the legitimate argument as to what is wrong with our system that our statistical data for large groups remains inhomogeneous with respect to gender.

>>6597959
>I don't know the men/women ratio for nurses but I'd bet it's pretty close to 0.
You know, "nursing" originally referred to breastfeeding. The very name of it heavily implies that it's a woman's job, which is intensely humiliating for any men who might otherwise be inclined to take up such work.

Nursing is a special case. Originally, nurses were distinguished by their lack of skill, they were just whoever was handy to perform the many simple chores required in the care of the ill. The people who could most easily be spared from other tasks would generally be women, since their lives have to be ordered to make room for things like pregnancy and childcare in the first place.

Over time, as nursing has become a full-time skilled profession, we've developed a very strange institution which strongly discourages male participation for basically no reason.

>>6598011

>The new study shows the proportion of male registered nurses has more than tripled since 1970, from 2.7 percent to 9.6 percent, and the proportion of male licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses has more than doubled from 3.9 percent to 8.1 percent.1
-US census


30 seconds on google......

It's the same shit with "lowered requirements" for the military, the fact that a lot of women can't pass the "pull-up" test compared to men. Lowering the requirements just puts your fellow soldiers at risk.

Same goes for engineering, lowering the requirements either
1. stalls production, or
2. increases risk of failure of product made

If you can't do a single fucking pull-up you should consider lifting.

>>6598011
I was actually speaking of health nurses, in French we call them "infirmières" so it is a distinct word from nurse, which is "nourrice" in French. I don't know if the data I found is refering to health nurse only ?

>>6597986
>I never implied that it didn't.
>When you lump biology together with physics into "science" or "natural sciences", you get a misleading picture of female participation.

>but we don't see who's taking the easy courses to get their math degree.
Given that there are women getting math degrees but not women getting engineering or comp sci degrees your argument here boils down to the claim that some math degrees are easier than every engineering or comp sci degree. Also, apparently those math degrees are composed of enough women that the percentage of mathematics graduates tends to 50% women.

This is retarded. Pure and applied math are both more math heavy and more difficult than engineering and comp sci courses. There are many easy engineering and comp sci courses. Also, many universities don't split up their mathematics programs in the same way some combine pure math, applied math, statistics, and actuary science into just "math" (note how each of those is as hard or harder than engineering or comp sci).

I tried looking up some statistics on the percentage of degrees awarded to different mathematics programs but wasn't able to find any quickly.

>>6597996
>It's not the same thing as a general impression based on experience. It's a story about something that happened in one particular case.
>one particular case
>a few particular cases

The difference here is superficial. Statistics requires a statistically significant sample size.

>>6598022
>in French we call them "infirmières" so it is a distinct word from nurse
I think this is the same with all romance languages. Spanish also uses that word, "enfermeras".

>>6598016
>>6597997
Refer to census data here on women in mathematics occupations.
>>6597966

>>6598016

But if a requirement is arbitrary, why stick to it? Doing pullups has nothing to do with shooting a rifle, or being able to get intelligence from the Afghan women; your arbitrary requirement robs you of talent and diversity that the real world requires for success.
Unfortunately, you haven't learned yet that the answers aren't always in the book. Apply science to the world is difficult, and success requires many attempts, and many viewpoints.

The world was not invented by A students parroting back the successes of the past; it is invented by the C students who have their eyes on the future.

>>6598034
well it come from the word "infirme", which means disabled, invalid.

>>6598059
Yes of course. As in the people they take care of.

>>6596983

>>6596983
>How do we make STEM easier and more exciting for women and make the men more attractive/interesting?
So cute, baby's first day on the internet

Woman are biologically weaker and not as smart as man.
Of course there are smart woman that are more than suitable to study STEM, but they are a statistical minority.

Stop putting more woman into STEM, this is a unstable idea.

19 y/o female in a prestigious computer engineering program with a full scholarship, AMA

>>6598966
>Profession: Web page designer.

>>6598968
I prefer hardware. I entered as electrical engineering but I want to do something with embedded systems I think

>>6598968
>>6598966

#rekt

>>6598969
>Profession: Tech evangelist.

>>6598976
>>6598969

HA HA HA HA HAAA!

>>6598976
lol i was offered an internship with TI as a technical sales engineer okok you win

>>6598976

>>6598982
> sales engineer
HAHAHAHAHAH

>>6596983
lol,
>Women are asserting their right to succeed, and that means the leaky pipe is set for a sophisticated and inclusive redesign in this generation. Exciting times.
So a bunch of women talk about getting other women involved in STEM fields? Since when does telling other people what to do with their lives work?
>Feminist: "YOU SHOULD BE IN A STEM MAJOR, MOON-SISTER!"
>Average Woman: "No. No, thank you. I'm not interested."

And scene.

>>6597160
.... is it weird that my evolutionary process on this board went from /b/, /v/, /fit/, then finally /sci/biz?

I know I'm not the only one. I've noticed a lot of crossover.

>>6597127
this

>>6596983
It's STEAM now, deal with it. MOst women are in the Arts section of STEAM. Solution: Make the other fields more creative, or conductive to creativity.

>>6598961
>bumping a dead thread with obvious bait.
OP detected

>>6597793

This, can we stop trying to social engineer people into doing certain things? Most of the classes I take are beyond autistic, it's always

>theorem, definition, proof, theorem, definition, proof, ok maybe a 5 minute example for 55 minutes of theory
>repeat this for 4 years

It's fucking boring to many people, and not many people can stand wasting their best years proving properties about isomorphisms. Also women don't have as much pressure forcing them to go into these professions, whereas men are seen as half retarded for not being in stem. Women are respected just for existing, but if your not a successful man, your worse than shit.

>>6599007
only in your mind mellow-cock.

>>6596983

the real answer is because they get pregnant from handsome muscular men and spend their 20s raising a baby as a single mother and don't have enough time for STEM

>>6599054
There are already plenty of women in Mathematics and the sciences.. The issue is actually just Engineering and Comp Sci. Refer to.
>>6597174

>>6599007
>It's STEAM now
You're out of date. Now it's STELETBLAMMMS.

There wasn't too much resistance to adding Medicine, and then someone pointed out that society couldn't function without Law, and none of any of this was going to matter much without Business. And how would anyone learn to do any of it without Education?

At this point, it would have been unfair to exclude Trades, Labor, Services, and Military.

So encourage kids to prepare for a career in STELETBLAMMMS, so they don't end up on W or in P.

>>6599105

Then the only explanation is that those listen under math are doing the easier math disciplines, i.e statistics, educational math, general math..etc

Usually the math majors give a lot of flexibility, hell at my school you can do half your major in non stem subjects.

>>6599142
>Then the only explanation is that those listen under math are doing the easier math disciplines, i.e statistics, educational math, general math..etc
Actually no. If you belive this then you are terrible at math. This claim has been addressed several times throughout this thread.

Also, engineering and comp sci are also easy when it comes ot mathematics. They're at the same level as statistics. If your claim held any water then the percentage of women in engineering and comp sci would be higher than the percentage of women in mathematics and physics/chem/bio (not the other way around).

>>6599140
lel. I was going to reply to his post, but you summed up everything in a much better way.

>>6599149

>being this delusional

Outside the top schools, it's generally accepted that engineering is the hardest undergrad degree to do, i.e hardest to get a high g.p.a and the job market reflects this

>>6599218
>Outside the top schools, it's generally accepted that engineering is the hardest undergrad degree to do, i.e hardest to get a high g.p.a and the job market reflects this
>calling others delusional

My sides have been formalized as an axiomatic system that is a model of group orbits.

>>6596983
We don't. This purposeful casulaization and feminization of STEM is what is ruining the field.

If women want to enter STEM, fine, let them! as long as they can meet the requirements, that is.

Same deal with the military, in a logical world there would be no male and female test, only a test designed to see if that soldier can provide the needed utilities, and do the work required

"Oh, we need our soldiers to be able to carry their 50 pound pack and at least 20 pounds of extra gear for 10 miles a day, but since you're a woman, you only need to carry 50 pounds for eight hours."

Guess what? now they're useless in a real life deployment. Same with STEM, if you can;t compete on the level needed, you don;t get in.

Why do we even care whether women are <50% in STEM?

>>6597659
I could imagine that slavic people think like >>6597663. That's probably why they massacre each other.

>>6596983
Where I live math is most balanced major. There are between 35-42% females.

However, all other STEM majors are dickfests.

>>6598045
If there are people that fail at STEM standards (whatever those may be) then they probably aren't worth it in the field. Simple as that. Yes there are lazy fucks in the world who are actually brilliant but those people are diamonds in a sea of shit. It would not be worth it to lower the standards and risk slowing down scientific progress just so a handful of people can shine with minimal effort.

>>6598969
brings back memories

>be me
>be taking class: µC
>be 88 males, and 2 grills
>1 of grills only took class, bc of boyfriend (they were mostly doing sw-engineering stuff)
>other grill no real qt
>while working on µC non-qt let's her work be done by male tutors, all of them (4) focused on her whenever she ran into probm --> all the time
>prof notices this, and tells them to back-off, let her do work alone.
>I lol'd

BTW
the other grill passed, her boyfriend not.

>>6599586
>not doing biology just for then tang

>>6596983

Any women that have this approach to STEM don't deserve to be part of STEM. If any of those things are an issue for you then you don't give a fuck about STEM. Same logic could apply to men, just change men are too ugly/geeky to no women in the field, but that doesn't matter to be honest.

Men and women do different things for different evolutionary reasons that can't really be changed. At the point you change STEM to be more attractive to women in total it will stop being about STEM.

It's like asking how do you make a shitty artist an artist, it just won't happen and it has no reason to happen. Anything past that is practically advertising.

>>6599595
oh, I actually excluded Biology from STEM.

>>6596983
>The three biggest things that turn women off STEM

Bullshit.

I've met accomplished women in hard sciences who never needed special treatment to get there.

>What else can we do?

You can fuck right off with your bullshit.

>>6596983

STEM is definitely a problem for women due to sexism.

However, another problem is that women are underrepresented in the field of commercial aviation. Less than 3% of commercial airline pilots are women. This is blatant sexism.

I'm working on an initiative to bring more women into this field by lowering the standards required. It's simply not true that a pilot needs to be highly qualified, this comes from the patriarchy.

The fuck? Anyone who is capable of it can do STEM. Just apply yourself and work hard.

>>6597060

What kind of logic is this?
>The atmosphere for girls in STEM is toxic
>Yeah, but that doesn't affect STEM enrollment because they wouldn't realize it was toxic until they were already there

>>6601542
This. I know at least 6 intelligent girls in STEM, 2 of which are phd candidates for a chemistry related field.

I have no idea what the fuck this thread is talking about.

>>6597669
>health professions

What the fuck is this stuff. My girlfriend told me yesterday she was getting a degree in 'health systems management' and I still have no idea what exactly that entails.

>>6596983
My sister had her own business in programming, she is pretty much a wizard when it comes to programming.

> nobody tried to stop her from achieving success in computer sciences
> she is a multi-millionaire
> she had never hired a female programmer because she says she has never met another girl with the right type of mental reasoning to be anything other than mediocre

>>6596983
>>the men are too ugly/geeky
why the fuck would intelligent people be inherently more unattractive?

I realize that social outcasts and neckbears flood physics and math to seek their own kind, but they drop out anyway and then you're left with on average normal looking people who simply are smarter than others.

I'd say I'm def good looking and I'm highly intelligent, just like Bernhard Riemann.

I don't understand, whiy exactly is this a problem?

There simply are more intelligent men than there are intelligent women, such is life.

Because "political correctness", which is fucking nonsense.

Give the word correctness any qualifier and it no longer means what it means, there is no such thing as political correctness, it is a buzzword to forward any propaganda you like.

Either some is correct or it is not correct. And saying men are more intelligent than women is correct, but not politically correct.

As a girl studying astrophysics, I must say I haven't gotten any hate so far as far as the field itself is concerned. I've only gotten hate from guys who find me attractive and don't realize I like my field and it requires a lot of my time and attention. There's a lot of girls who hate me though, that bothers me a bit. Good thing I don't have to interact with people much.

>>6597325

Girls play with dolls because manipulating people is training for adulthood, where they apply those skills.

>>6601683
Ugh... how dense do you have to be to think that this isn't the commonly-understood implication of the term "politically correct"?

People only call something "politically correct" to imply that it's false, but there's political pressure to say it anyway. It's an inherently disparaging term. People will always get offended if you call something they say "politically correct".

How do you not pick up on that?

>>6601731
I don't live in an english speaking country and nobody is stupid enough to use that term here, that's how

sincerely, go fuck yourself

>>6601731
>>6601683
You're both idiots. It comes from the etymology meaning what is "correct in a city". Basically the politically correct version of something is the version of something that a functioning member of modern society would use.

/pol/ and /r9k/ hate it because it marginalizes them as socially inept racists.