The idea that women don't do science because they are dumb is correctly dismissed. But let me introduce a different, more interesting, idea. What if most women don't do science because they are smart?
Young people don't care about the numbers, they are impressed by success, and bios of most obscure figures doing science, lets face the ugly truth... aren't good models of success.
We are fixing the wrong problem here, with too simplistic premises (the problem is that people is ignorant / that we don't have exactly the same number of people in each demographic category doing science / That everybody should have the same interests and goals and think in the same way)
When the real problem to address is that working conditions in science are, often, terrible and that our society punish people in many different ways for wanting to be scientists
> When the real problem to address is that working conditions in science are, often, terrible and that our society punish people in many different ways for wanting to be scientists
Part of that problem was that the tenuous professional environment meant that very few scientists were willing to speak up when the science becomes politicized. With good reason, we saw the few that did get absolutely obliterated and their careers-ended - often going as far as then tarnishing them at a personal level.
As far as societal trust, scientists are not as bad as journalists yet, but they're going to get there[1]. The replication crisis was the backdrop of this, but the COVID pandemic made it very clear to anyone paying attention that the government dictates scientific consensus and any disagreement is squelched both by fellow scientists, and the prestige organizations in each field.
Now that this is being compounded with Woke-testing hires and publications, you've effectively ended the legitimacy of most publications, institutions, and papers.
I agree with the gist of what you say. Although I wouldn't say it's about smart or stupid - men are smart too, yet we make those questionable career choices.
It's rather about people understanding their situation pretty well. I think that we should assume that for ANY large group of people which isn't pathologically self-selected, they understand their own situation pretty well. They know what they have lose. They know what they stand to win. They know the tradeoffs they face. Better than those outside their group do.
It sounds trivial, but a ton of gender justice arguments just ignore it. For instance, tge big splash a while back arguing that women could get paid better if they only were as bold as men in asking for a raise, was suggesting women are systematically wrong about their own situation. As a group, not merely the odd individual. And I don't buy that.
The most plausible argument for the lack of women in X (or the lack of men in Y) to me always was simply that people don't want to be in a small minority if they can choose. Schelling's segregation model. That IS an argument for gender quotas, but is an argument AGAINST "sensitivity training" or similar efforts, at least for thinking they will fix balance problems.
> When the real problem to address is that working conditions in science are, often, terrible and that our society punish people in many different ways for wanting to be scientists
My wife was certainly smart enough to bail on science for the corp. software world for this reason, so count that as one data point in the women are smart category
There is/was an MIT computer scientist who argued that the reason why fewer female students stay with CS is that they take a more pragmatic view of the career prospects.
Young people don't care about the numbers, they are impressed by success, and bios of most obscure figures doing science, lets face the ugly truth... aren't good models of success.
We are fixing the wrong problem here, with too simplistic premises (the problem is that people is ignorant / that we don't have exactly the same number of people in each demographic category doing science / That everybody should have the same interests and goals and think in the same way)
When the real problem to address is that working conditions in science are, often, terrible and that our society punish people in many different ways for wanting to be scientists