heisnotanalienreally

Of course, we socialise boys and girls differently but the problem with most this stuff that stems from modern feminism is that it is by and large scientifically illiterate. Should we listen to scientists when it comes to differences between the sexes or gender studies departments? Gender studies unfortunately just have too much of an agenda to be trusted so I'm sorry a lot of the studies you'll find we should view (as we should with anything but especially I mean) with suspicion. What's more these departments do not value rigorous debate when it comes to the truth!

In a 2008 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a group of international researchers compared data on gender and personality across 55 nations. Throughout the world, women tend to be more nurturing, risk averse and emotionally expressive, while men are usually more competitive, risk taking, and emotionally flat. But the most fascinating finding is this: Personality differences between men and women are the argest and most robust in the more prosperous, egalitarian, and educated societies.

Women are different and make different choices. There is no conspiracy or structural barriers. In fact it would seem the more equal societies become the less likely we are to see women in STEM.

I have no idea why we people say there ought to be a 50/50 split. Considering how different genetically men and women are....

For someone so educated, you're not great at reading. At no point did I see there is evidence that women are less capable. It is not through less being less capable than women do not take up STEM as much as men (obviously some women do and that's fine), it is simply through having different (biologically determined) interests. And that's fine. Hormonal states affect how people think. Sorry. You know why there is no STEM problem in China? Because people don't have any fucking choice. In the West, it is not like that. Maybe you stick to science where you don't have to deal with such grayness. By the way, why women in STEM? What about women as mechanics? Or women getting blown to pieces in the military? What about women picking up trash?

(Notice that you couldn't resist a cheap ad hominem despite my replies being nothing less than civil to you. I don't get it. Is asking questions and debate bad? Is QUESTIONING things so bad? I bet you're one of these beta guys who preaching about being so for women but watching the nastiest porn behind the scenes... That said, I imagine as an academic you don't have much academic freedom anymore. Realistically it would be bad for your career to question this position and you it certainly wouldn't help bag that sweet-white-well-brought-up-well-educated-but-oh-so-oppressed-female-feminist-academic pussy )

What about black people in STEM? Or people from lower-income families? Do you think upper-middle-class women are at more of a disadvantage than lower-income black people? Why did you feel it was necessary to mention Women in STEM in your IAMA at all? Is it pure virtue signalling? Do you think we should stop patronising people?

Given all the problems in the world, it boggles my mind that this one 'issue' gets so much attention. It seems to me, it is more that is the 'cause' everyone has to say they are for - nothing to do with helping people but saying the 'rights easy thing and appearing virtuous. I don't buy it for a second.

If they are unreported then how do you know they are undereported?

In any case, there are well-established avenues to deal with this sort of behaviour. As a woman, men will be attracted to you and no doubt sometimes do so in a creepy way but it is up to you to tell them to get fucked. Society cannot be any other way. Well it can but you wouldn't like it if it were...