For black CEOs in Silicon Valley, humiliation is a part of doing business

Well, it's still sexist. Same thing. Also, wrong.

A better example would be, "women aren't passionate about driving". That's a stereotype, likely a correct one (i.e. substantiated by statistics... I mean, I'm not certain, but that would be my prior, but I'm very open to changing it), and most importantly: not harmful. It's just a stereotype.

I'm not denying that things could be harmful (racism, sexist, ...). But not all stereotypes are. Like guessing that "Alex" is probably a guy.

Saying it’s not harmful is your privilege showing. Imagine you’re a 6 year old girl and you love cars but you never are encouraged because “women aren’t passionate about driving”.

How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people, be it white, black, male, female, trans, etc?

> That's a stereotype, likely a correct one [snip], and most importantly: not harmful. It's just a stereotype.

Citation on those not being harmful? Stereotypes like that seem to be a driving factor in why STEM fields are very male dominated.

"Girls don't like cars; go find some dolls to play with."

Not going to get into whether "just a stereotype" is harmful generally, but your example really depends on the context. What if you're a woman applying to be a performance driver somewhere, and the response to your application is "women aren't passionate about driving"? That would be harmful.

It's pretty harmful if you're a woman who likes driving and you keep getting excluded from driving related groups and discussions because the men in these groups assume your interest is not genuine.

> Saying it’s not harmful is your privilege showing.

No, it's my experience showing. I grew up being basically ostracized (and also bullied) for being a geek. Little did I know it would turn out to be an extremely lucrative career. Simply, while other boys were out playing sports, or indoors playing computer games, I was programming. Because I was interested.

Having said that, I think it's also the case that some people are discouraged from doing what they want, because parents/society. I don't think I'm doing that though. If anything, I'd be more curious about someone doing something unusual (not even in an anti-stereotypical way, but like, generally - such as archery, or spear fishing, or (until recently) bread-making).

> How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people

I definitely support people doing pretty much whatever. But experience shows that it's often better to e.g. lead conversations into interesting topics, rather than play a questions & answers game to find a common interest. The more you're able to do that, based on quick inferences, the better conversationalist you are (on average).

slightly off-topic, while every Alex I know personally is a guy for the generation that plays Minecraft 'Alex' is considered female.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/28/minecraft...

But surely it can be harmful? Perhaps women aren't encouraged to get into racing sports and get potentially lucrative careers out of it. Imagine the same sentence with computers - or programming! - replacing driving. Many a heated discussion has been had on these forums about a certain man and his memo.

No normal parent has said anything even remotely like that in the last 30 years. Why is it so terrible to accept that men and women on average have different interests? Everyone knows that testosterone makes young men orders of magnitude more violent, why is it inconceivable that they could also be 4 times more interested in more mechanic play? It’s been observed even in almost newborn chimpanzees for Gods sake.

That would be an absurd response if the woman in question was actually interested. People only use stereotypes when they DONT have specific information.

I’m over forty and and upper middle class. It’s a true stereotype that we don’t tend to be passionate skateboarders, but someone that met me in a skatepark would not draw the conclusion that I’m not interested based on my age and socioeconomics.

Citation on "Stereotypes like that seem to be a driving factor in why STEM fields are very male dominated".

And citation for that citation, ad absurdum.

At some point, we have to agree on what is actually going on in this world. We can't solely rely on citations, because I can just say that those citations are a result of an oppressive patriarchy and as a result, I don't accept your citation as valid.

Where do we go form here?

The basis for any possible discussion is solidarity - society doesn't work if people are constantly being pitted against each other.

If it doesn't promote solidarity - it's anti society, pro anarchy. If you want guns in the streets and children screaming, we're well on our way. I just don't know if those creating anarchy (all of corporate media including social platforms) are even aware of what they've done - they're undermining the foundation of society that makes their existence possible and they don't seem to care.

I think it's frustrating that people make claims to ideas that they are vaguely aware about. The vagueness can lead to repeating incorrect claims which I think is harmful, especially when discussing sensitive topics.

> Everyone knows that testosterone makes young men orders of magnitude more violent

You're using hyperbole but yes it's commonly understood that there's a link between testosterone and aggression, however you extend that claim to something completely different

> why is it inconceivable that they could also be 4 times more interested in more mechanic play? It’s been observed even in almost newborn chimpanzees for Gods sake.

I counter that this second claim is related to the first, is it that testosterone makes young males more likely to play with mechanical objects? There are a few articles that reference this study from 2008 [1]. It refers to rhesus monkeys not chimpanzees and their hypothesis at the end is much more nuanced

>We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.

Furthermore there is at least 1 meta-analysis from 2017 [2] that highlights

> Gender differences in toy choice exist and appear to be the product of both innate and social forces. > Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed

Note they do not make the claim that testosterone is the cause of these differences. Scientists try to be careful about the language they use, we should be just as careful.

1: Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.03.008

2: Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis - https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2064

> No normal parent has said anything even remotely like that in the last 30 years.

You haven't been exposed to a very broad range of parents. I've seen parents who very tightly control which toys, clothes, and grooming choices their kids make because they don't align with the parent's gender expectations. It's frustratingly common in the US.

Is it conceivable that men and women have different average personal preferences [partly] for reasons which are linked to biology? Certainly, though nobody in this thread has suggested that can't be a factor.

Is it plausible to assume that STEM fields and female participation is a case where stereotypes have very little effect? I think I'd need some pretty strong evidence for the idea stereotypes had little effect on any kind of career choice. Even less so for fields where any mention of stereotypes and gender imbalance garners a furious insistence that the stereotype is [i] irrelevant to anyone's advice or decision making [ii] also such an accurate representation of biologically-driven preferences it would be unfair for the gender ratio to change

This is often claimed, but not something that holds up to scrutiny. Women's representation in technology peaked in the US during the 1980s. Are we really going to argue that gender stereotypes are stronger in 2020 than 30-40 years ago? Similarly, countries with low gender equality actually have higher rates of women in STEM as compared to more egalitarian countries [1].

I don't disagree that some my find stereotypes alienating. But you're making a very big leap to claim that it's a "driving factor" as far as gender representation in STEM.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

It is tough teenage boys who want to babysit for extra cash. They always seem lose the job to a younger girl.

It's both, nothing odd here.

So you agree that gender has direct (hormonal) influence on toy selection?

Specifically to quote your post: "toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and..."

They can both be harmful and valid

I’m not saying anything about the cause, just positing that since there are known biological differences that are extremely significant, such as when it comes to aggression, it seems strange to categorically rule out the possibility of a much milder difference in preferences when it comes to fields of study or work.

Linking the notion of men and women to biology is a risky proposition nowadays.

Perhaps nobody said it explicitly, but when you see a difference in outcome, computer scientists are mostly men for example, and draw the conclusion that there must be discrimination and stereotyping then you indirectly say that it can’t be due to difference in preferences.

Also, I would think that the person that claims discrimination would have the burden of proof.

Well I only had one set of parents myself that is true. But do you actually think that the reason 9 out of 10 computer scientists are men is that almost all parents tell their daughters to stay away from STEM fields? How does that tally with the female representation in medicine and biology?

I prefer the later meta-analysis which looked at studies on humans which says

>Gender differences in toy choice exist and appear to be the product of both innate and social forces.

Gender seems to make some sort of difference but social factors also seem to make a difference. There is no claim to which is stronger, just that there is a difference. Taking this a step further I hypothesize that social forces could be enough to meaningfully change the gender difference.

Google's published tech stats suggest the ratio is closer to 7 in 10. Women physicians are 3-4 in 10. Biology appears to be 6 in 10 from what I could find (and is relatively unique in STEM fields, also not out of line with the socialization that animals/horses/veterinarians/marine biologists are often socialized as girls vocations).

And yeah, I think it's a potential contributing factor (one of many). Kids in many parts of the country are socialized that certain things are only for certain genders. It sucks. Let kids like whatever they want.

> Perhaps nobody said it explicitly, but when you see a difference in outcome, computer scientists are mostly men for example, and draw the conclusion that there must be discrimination and stereotyping then you indirectly say that it can’t be due to difference in preferences.

Well yes, if stereotypes or discrimination play any role it at all in career selection, it rules out the possibility that the highly variable ratio of male to female computer scientists is determined solely by biology. This strikes me as a much stronger claim requiring much stronger proof than a statement to the effect that [the well-established existence of] stereotypes is amongst the driving factors in career selection; particularly given that the ratio of male to female computer scientists varies hugely by place and time in ways which would be very difficult to attribute solely to biology.

The cross sectional data is interesting and certainly puts a dent in simplistic explanations that only the patriarchy is preventing gender parity in STEM. But then again, variation in male/female average preferences by time and place works overall in favour of arguments that cultural factors like stereotyping influence career choices (and against biological predispositions being the one true explanation for female underrepresentation). It's not entirely impossible that women are simply more inclined to pick professions other than tech as barriers to other careers are removed (I'm sure the stereotypes that women don't belong in finance or law are stronger in the UAE and were stronger in the 1980s US). But once one acknowledges that alienation [and anticipation of discrimination, and role models] probably plays some role in career selection, the question becomes why it wouldn't be a driving factor in [self]selection for a field where US gender gaps were much smaller when it was a non-traditional niche attracting comparatively little attention than when it was a mainstream white collar career choice but one whose male nerd stereotypes are firmly ingrained in public consciousness.

If stereotypes were a major factor wouldn’t progressive countries like Sweden have more female physicists and programmers than a traditionalist gender role stronghold like Russia? In reality it’s the opposite.

Unless one believes that stereotypes are entirely absent from or irrelevant in progressive countries, not necessarily. It's well established that females in Russia view STEM more positively [not just other possibly more-chauvinist-in-Russia professions more negatively] than in many other countries.

Since it's palpably absurd to attribute this to differences between Russian and other European female biology, I think you've just refuted the argument that biology is likely to be the sole factor determining career choices. Given that we have just proven that cultural attitudes do shape career choices to some extent, perhaps they are even partly influenced by some people's insistence that the only actually problematic attitude towards female participation in their field is considering women equally likely to be suited to the job?

> That would be an absurd response if the woman in question was actually interested.

Of course, and that's the danger of stereotypes. Now it's up to her to prove she's interested.

> It’s a true stereotype that we don’t tend to be passionate skateboarders, but someone that met me in a skatepark would not draw the conclusion that I’m not interested based on my age and socioeconomics.

This is a great example. If they saw you standing there watching, they would draw the conclusion you're there with your kid/working maintenance/etc. Pull a random gamer kid with no skating passion and stand him next to you, then ask people who the skater is -- I'd bet 99 times out of 100 they pick the kid. Only once you prove yourself a skater does anyone correctly evaluate you, and to anyone who wasn't there when you proved it, you have to prove it again next time (or someone from the in group vouches for you). Go to a different skate park and you have to prove yourself again. Every time you meet someone new, you have to do a little dog and pony show to prove you're a Real Skater™ [0].

Now replace skating with programming and it should be obvious why stereotypes can be harmful.

[0] Even Tony Hawk runs into this not infrequently (stories on his twitter) where people even after learning his name can't/don't accept he's the pro skater.

Yet you don't see organizations and mobs fighting for that.

In Russia and poorer countries the lifestyle of a woman working as a nurse or teacher is radically different from one working as an engineer. In Scandinavia the difference is very small, you'll send your kids to the same schools, the same universities, you have the same medical care anyway, so you can afford to work with something you enjoy.

I don't really understand your logic. The biology is the same in both places, but we can all agree that Sweden is 100 times more progressive. Even if you claim there are still stereotyping here, their effect would be much much smaller. How can that be reconciled with the much larger disparities we see in Sweden?