> The dogma that needs to be questioned (not least because the scientific evidence against it is overwhelming) is the idea that the gender imbalance in STEM fields (and in nursing/care/humanities) is more likely the undesirable outcome of sexism, discrimination and hostile environments, rather than the desirable result of free choices made by liberated western women following their hearts
The dogma that needs to be questioned is the idea that, in a society where women were only given the vote in the last 100 years, were still relegated to the kitchen until after WWII and - to this day - are considered second-class citizens who can't determine what to do with their own bodies, we should be talking about them being in a "position of equality."
> How about just letting people be whatever they want to be ?
Is anyone forcing women to become engineers? I wasn't aware of that. Maybe you just have a pre-conception of what women "should do" and seeing them in your field strikes you as "someone must have forced them"?
> on one side we have a very straightforward biology/hormonal influence-based theory supported by evidence. On the other hand we have something much more complex, bordering on conspiracy theory : "the patriarchy"
No. Stop trying to make this some conspiracy theory. The "evidence" you are presenting as to why women behave one way is just a step above phrenology, which was wildly popular in the early 1900s and proven to be completely bogus since. You can't discount societal context when talking about behavior. Why do Norwegian and Swedish women behave differently than American women, if biology should explain everything?
The dogma that needs to be questioned is the idea that, in a society where women were only given the vote in the last 100 years, were still relegated to the kitchen until after WWII and - to this day - are considered second-class citizens who can't determine what to do with their own bodies, we should be talking about them being in a "position of equality."
> How about just letting people be whatever they want to be ?
Is anyone forcing women to become engineers? I wasn't aware of that. Maybe you just have a pre-conception of what women "should do" and seeing them in your field strikes you as "someone must have forced them"?
> on one side we have a very straightforward biology/hormonal influence-based theory supported by evidence. On the other hand we have something much more complex, bordering on conspiracy theory : "the patriarchy"
No. Stop trying to make this some conspiracy theory. The "evidence" you are presenting as to why women behave one way is just a step above phrenology, which was wildly popular in the early 1900s and proven to be completely bogus since. You can't discount societal context when talking about behavior. Why do Norwegian and Swedish women behave differently than American women, if biology should explain everything?