Netherlands - Women in science are missing out on dozens of millions of euros

[Sly Saint]

"Currently, 11 percent of EUR’s professors are female.

Women are still underrepresented in the top echelons of science. As a result, they miss out on up to €200 million, according to the annual monitor published by the Dutch Network of Women Professors."

https://www.erasmusmagazine.nl/en/2...e-missing-out-on-dozens-of-millions-of-euros/

(note to people in the Netherlands the UK has a couple of female Professors we would be glad to export....all offers considered)

 

[sb4]

I do not understand why this is seen as a big problem. It is a result of men and women being physically and mentally different.

What would the solution to this be? Add even more incentives for women in STEM? As far as I understand it, boys are falling significantly behind girls in every level of education. Girls are going to uni and double the rate of boys. The only area the boys are competing in is STEM. Now even this is not good enough for some people, I think they won't be happy until girls dominate every subject, and even then, there will not be a 50/50 earnings gap IMO as there are diferences between the genders that are biological, not just social.

 

[Trish]

I do not understand why this is seen as a big problem. It is a result of men and women being physically and mentally different.

Physically different, I grant you. But I'm not sure how this has any bearing on whether we can be good at science. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Speaking as a female Science graduate and former Maths teacher, my experience is that the females I've come across in these fields are just as bright as the males. The difference I've noted is in the choices of profession.

So, for example, at present many girls who are clever enough to be top physicists or engineers choose instead to study other subjects. It's not that they can't do physics, it's that they choose not to. Why that might be so is a whole different conversation.

 

[Alvin]

Now even this is not good enough for some people, I think they won't be happy until girls dominate every subject, and even then, there will not be a 50/50 earnings gap IMO as there are diferences between the genders that are biological, not just social.

Your lucky there is no dislike button

 

[sb4]

Physically different, I grant you. But I'm not sure how this has any bearing on whether we can be good at science. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Speaking as a female Science graduate and former Maths teacher, my experience is that the females I've come across in these fields are just as bright as the males. The difference I've noted is in the choices of profession.

So, for example, at present many girls who are clever enough to be top physicists or engineers choose instead to study other subjects. It's not that they can't do physics, it's that they choose not to. Why that might be so is a whole different conversation.

You appear to have misunderstood what I have said. I never said women are less intelligent, just simply they think differently, have different choices and priorities, on average, than men. Yes some of this is social, but also it is biological, babies who are male / higher testosterone look more at objects than faces, for example. It appears women prefer more social jobs, on average, and men more object oriented. This makes sense evolutionary speaking.

Only 11% professors does not mean women are bad at science, it also doesn't mean there is rampant sexism in science. There are a whole bunch of factors that go into this and I think biology is a huge one and sexism a much smaller one.

Your lucky there is no dislike button

Yes I am, but it's better this way, no? With down vote button, forums turn into echo chambers.

 

[Adrian]

I do not understand why this is seen as a big problem. It is a result of men and women being physically and mentally different.

What would the solution to this be? Add even more incentives for women in STEM? As far as I understand it, boys are falling significantly behind girls in every level of education. Girls are going to uni and double the rate of boys. The only area the boys are competing in is STEM. Now even this is not good enough for some people, I think they won't be happy until girls dominate every subject, and even then, there will not be a 50/50 earnings gap IMO as there are diferences between the genders that are biological, not just social.

There is a definite shortage of women in technology and engineering jobs and the UK is particularly bad not sure about the Netherlands. Also I've thought at times there is an old boys network in promoting in some jobs in academia. I don't think it is necessarily world wide - I seem to remember a former (female) colleague of mine from China saying it wasn't the case there.

There is nothing biological about it. I've worked with some very bright and good women in computer science, maths and other subjects and along with some mediocre men (this is more the norm).

 

[Adrian]

Only 11% professors does not mean women are bad at science, it also doesn't mean there is rampant sexism in science. There are a whole bunch of factors that go into this and I think biology is a huge one and sexism a much smaller one

Some companies are building a very bad reputation for sexism in technology. Given the stories I've heard it is a big factor.

Looking at how many quite poor male academics there are I would say it is partly sexism in the work place and partly due to women being put off science early (especially those at an age to get professorships). When my wife was doing a maths A level she was told as a girl she had no business being there by the teacher.

 

[Alvin]

simply they think differently, have different choices and priorities, on average, than men. Yes some of this is social, but also it is biological, babies who are male / higher testosterone look more at objects than faces, for example. It appears women prefer more social jobs, on average, and men more object oriented. This makes sense evolutionary speaking.

I'm not going to argue with this mindset because its a waste of energy but i will point out this is a variant of lies that have been told for centuries if not millennia, from person hood rights to voting rights to medicine and legal rights.

 

[sb4]

There is a definite shortage of women in technology and engineering jobs and the UK is particularly bad not sure about the Netherlands. Also I've thought at times there is an old boys network in promoting in some jobs in academia. I don't think it is necessarily world wide - I seem to remember a former (female) colleague of mine from China saying it wasn't the case there.

But what percentage would you like? Surely you would agree that 50/50 wouldn't occur naturally in a world with no sexism. I mean just look at the BBC. They have openly set targets for 50/50 by 2020. I watch the football shows. About 3 years ago they were 95% male and this makes perfect sense. Overwhelmingly males like football as a hobby and what to be footballers growing up compared with females who want other things. So it would make sense that the people who apply for the shows, and have relevant experience (as ex managers / players) would be overwhelmingly male.
Anyway, in a couple years time, it has gone from 95% male to 50/50. Now do you think suddenly a ton more women have applied over the last years. Or the BBC has not renewed the contracts of it's male correspondents and hired exclusively females? This is genuine sexism. People should be hired based on merit not gender. This kind of thing is also being pushed in education, in particular STEM.

There is nothing biological about it. I've worked with some very bright and good women in computer science, maths and other subjects and along with some mediocre men (this is more the norm).

I am sure you have. The facts are though, men still apply more for these jobs, despite incentives for women. One idea is that boys usually do good in stem but bad in other subjects wheras girls do good across the board. This means boys have to go to STEM if they want higher education.

Some companies are building a very bad reputation for sexism in technology. Given the stories I've heard it is a big factor.

Looking at how many quite poor male academics there are I would say it is partly sexism in the work place and partly due to women being put off science early (especially those at an age to get professorships). When my wife was doing a maths A level she was told as a girl she had no business being there by the teacher.

I think these are factors but only small ones. Would you agree that biological differences between the genders influences life choices?

I'm not going to argue with this mindset because its a waste of energy but i do want to point out this is a variant of lies that have been told for centuries if not millennia, from person hood rights to voting rights.

I understand if you want to preserve energy but it's unfair to lump what I'm saying in with these other things.

 

[Trish]

You appear to have misunderstood what I have said. I never said women are less intelligent, just simply they think differently, have different choices and priorities, on average, than men.

Ah, OK, thanks for clarifying. I took mentally different to mean intelligence, where you meant it to mean interests. I don't want to prolong a fairly pointless argument. I'll just suggest that this difference may be as much cultural as biological. Let's agree to differ and leave it at that.

 

[Valentijn]

As far as I understand it, boys are falling significantly behind girls in every level of education. Girls are going to uni and double the rate of boys.

Do you have evidence for these claims?

Now even this is not good enough for some people, I think they won't be happy until girls dominate every subject

Why do you think that?

I do not understand why this is seen as a big problem.

Because a disparity suggests systematic problems, with hiring and promotion, and/or with social perceptions of women's capabilities.

It is a result of men and women being physically and mentally different.

What's the basis for your assertion?

just simply they think differently

No, we don't.

have different choices and priorities, on average, than men

The ones going into research-oriented fields certainly have made the same choices as men, and would seem to have the same priorities. If their life goal was to stay home and make babies while cooking their man a nice taart, surely they'd go for an easier degree.

It appears women prefer more social jobs, on average, and men more object oriented.

Is this based solely on your beliefs, or is there a basis for these claims?

This makes sense evolutionary speaking.

How so?

There are a whole bunch of factors that go into this and I think biology is a huge one and sexism a much smaller one.

Men and women have nearly identical biology - one very short chromosome of difference. It's human nature to focus on the differences, but that doesn't mean that the sex differences are at all important aside from reproduction.

And sexism is indeed known to be a big problem in employment in the Netherlands, along with discrimination based on age and ethnicity. There are basically no government measurements taken to prevent employment discrimination, and the results are predictable. I would also expect the employment rate of female professors to be similar at different institutions if it was purely due to women being women, rather than biases playing a roll. But as you could see in the article under discussion, rates vary from 11% to 29% at different Dutch universities, which is quite a large variation.

Yes I am, but it's better this way, no? With down vote button, forums turn into echo chambers.

Creating a safe environment where people aren't worried about being judged or belittled, even by association or implication, is hardly the same thing as an echo chamber.

 

[Valentijn]

I'm not going to argue with this mindset because its a waste of energy but i will point out this is a variant of lies that have been told for centuries if not millennia, from person hood rights to voting rights to medicine and legal rights.

I agree - it's a waste of everyone's time. But the alternative to arguing it is to let those lies stand unopposed, and potentially leave others with the impression that there is no opposition. Or we could emulate other forums and delete such content so there's no need to argue with it.

I watch the football shows. About 3 years ago they were 95% male and this makes perfect sense. Overwhelmingly males like football as a hobby and what to be footballers growing up compared with females who want other things. So it would make sense that the people who apply for the shows, and have relevant experience (as ex managers / players) would be overwhelmingly male.

No, there are women's professional soccer teams in most countries. While there may be fewer female hooligans in the stands, there is a pretty significant amount of women who have played soccer professionally and who are as qualified to be a commentator as men are. It is irrelevant that more of the fans might be men, especially when continuing male domination on television will discourage further female interest in soccer.

This is genuine sexism.

No, sexism is female soccer players being paid a genuine pittance compared to male teams in the same country, even when the women are doing far better at matches and tournaments, and bringing in more revenue for various entities. This has literally happened in the US.

This means boys have to go to STEM if they want higher education.

That's ridiculous. Men go into any profession that they want to, and are more likely to end up in upper management in the process.

 

[Alvin]

I agree - it's a waste of everyone's time. But the alternative to arguing it is to let those lies stand unopposed, and potentially leave others with the impression that there is no opposition. Or we could emulate other forums and delete such content so there's no need to argue with it.

Something a feminist wrote stuck with me, women don't need men to protect them, we need men to stop protecting each other, which is why i posted in this thread, his cave man views don't represent mine and letting the comment pass benefits his viewpoint. Of course refuting his points will make no difference because its a belief hence all the facts in the world won't change his mind (hence waste of energy that i don't have).
Social progress is continuing but of course still has a long way to go

 

[sb4]

Do you have evidence for these claims?

https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/boys-falling-behind-at-school
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/12/university-gender-gap-scandal-thinktank-men
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...nglish-maths-history-first-time-a7898186.html
Last one shows exception to rule.

Why do you think that?

From what I have seen the only are that boys excel at is STEM, girls good accross board. I hear a lot on the news about incentives to get more girls in STEM, STEM companies striving for 50/50 etc. I don't hear many stories about why boys are falling behind in other areas. The conclusion is some people won'y be happy until women are dominant in this area as well.

Because a disparity suggests systematic problems, with hiring and promotion, and/or with social perceptions of women's capabilities.

These are factors but IMO not the main ones.

What's the basis for your assertion?

Well there are studies showing differences in babies based on gender when they are very young. Testostorone increases risk taking, aggression, competitiveness, energy levels and god knows what else. This leads to differen't decion making, different preferences, etc.

It also makes sense evolutionairly to get genders to specialise at differen't things. Some of parts greater than whole.

No, we don't.

On average women do think diferently than men.

The ones going into research-oriented fields certainly have made the same choices as men, and would seem to have the same priorities. If their life goal was to stay home and make babies while cooking their man a nice taart, surely they'd go for an easier degree.

Yes but we are talking about averages. Also women tend to drop out of these fields or go part time around child bearing age. This isn't a bad thing. Someone has to look after kids and women are better suited. Obviously this is a decision for each family to make but it makes sense why women does this more.

Is this based solely on your beliefs, or is there a basis for these claims?

I read something about it a while back but yes its what I currently believe.

How so?

Some of parts greater than whole.

Men and women have nearly identical biology - one very short chromosome of difference. It's human nature to focus on the differences, but that doesn't mean that the sex differences are at all important aside from reproduction.

And sexism is indeed known to be a big problem in employment in the Netherlands, along with discrimination based on age and ethnicity. There are basically no government measurements taken to prevent employment discrimination, and the results are predictable. I would also expect the employment rate of female professors to be similar at different institutions if it was purely due to women being women, rather than biases playing a roll. But as you could see in the article under discussion, rates vary from 11% to 29% at different Dutch universities, which is quite a large variation.

Women aren't nearly identical to men biologically, they are much different. Why do you think ME affect x4 more women.

Sexism is a thing but it's not the only thing and it is much smaller.

Creating a safe environment where people aren't worried about being judged or belittled, even by association or implication, is hardly the same thing as an echo chamber.

Well a downvote button usually hides posts or discourages people from posting similair content. Don't see how what I am doing is belittling anyone.

 

[sb4]

No, there are women's professional soccer teams in most countries. While there may be fewer female hooligans in the stands, there is a pretty significant amount of women who have played soccer professionally and who are as qualified to be a commentator as men are. It is irrelevant that more of the fans might be men, especially when continuing male domination on television will discourage further female interest in soccer.

Why are romance novels overwhelmingly bought by women?

No, sexism is female soccer players being paid a genuine pittance compared to male teams in the same country, even when the women are doing far better at matches and tournaments, and bringing in more revenue for various entities. This has literally happened in the US.

Interest in womens soccer is very very small compared to men. This means they get less views, less views = lower profit.

his cave man views

I have been perfectly nice to you so this is uncalled for. I don't see how saying there are physical and mental differences between the genders and this influences life chioces is a cave man view.

 

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

Why are romance novels overwhelmingly bought by women?

Because they are culturally indoctrinated to believe that their handsome prince will make their fragile princess lives complete before they can read.

 

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

Interest in womens soccer is very very small compared to men. This means they get less views, less views = lower profit.

Because boys are culturally indoctrinated to believe their value as male is linked to their ability to kick and throw a ball before they are out of nappies.

 

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

I have been perfectly nice to you so this is uncalled for. I don't see how saying there are physical and mental differences between the genders and this influences life chioces is a cave man view.

Societal culture influences life choices and ours is a patriarchal society.
I worked in early years education in the 90s and it was as clear as day that adults encourage traditional gender roles and behaviours in their children from the moment they are born.

 

[Woolie]

I'm not going to argue with this mindset because its a waste of energy but i will point out this is a variant of lies that have been told for centuries if not millennia, from person hood rights to voting rights to medicine and legal rights.

Like 1000x, @Alvin!

It was barely a century ago when people believed that if you overeducated women, they would not be able to cope and could easily descend into madness.

It sounds ridiculous now, doesn't it? Because we know better. But the claims made here by @sb4 will seem just as ridiculous to the next generation. And of course to many in the present generation who bother to reflect on it all.

 

[sb4]

Because they are culturally indoctrinated to believe that their handsome prince will make their fragile princess lives complete before they can read.

Yes social conditioning is a thing, yet biological conditioning is also a thing. It would be unreasonable to suggest it is only one of these things.

It makes perfect evolutionary sense why a woman would naturally be attracted to prince charming without social conditioning. A woman wants somebody that has the social / physical power to protect her whilst she is raising kids, the person that raises the highest is more desirable because this indicates he has better genes.

Because boys are culturally indoctrinated to believe their value as male is linked to their ability to kick and throw a ball before they are out of nappies.

It also makes sense why biologically this would be the case. This is why babies with highher T look at objects more instead of faces. The boys will be the ones that hunt and fight when they grow up. It makes sense for them to enjoy sports (which are kind of simulated combat) more. If evolutionairly speaking women where just as eagar as men for this, then when an army appears, they would be more likely to get up and fight it instead of staying back. This would mean more women die in the battle. If the other army has just men, then there women are saved. Next generation when they fight again, the army with women fighters would be much smaller as they have been unable to repopulate as fast.

Societal culture influences life choices and ours is a patriarchal society.
I worked in early years education in the 90s and it was as clear as day that adults encourage traditional gender roles and behaviours in their children from the moment they are born.

Gender roles doesn't necessarily mean it's patrirchal. If you go back 200 years then yes it was very difficult for a women to rise to any position of power, this is of course unfair and sexist. Yet the flip side is, men died far more and earlier, men were half as likely to pass on their genes, etc.

I think there is a tendancy to look at the top 20% of men who are merchants, kings, politicians and just assume that men had it great. When in reality the other ~80% also had a real shit time, working in factories 12hrs a day with no sun light, doing dangerous jobs like mining or fishing, and being forced to fight wars. If this was truely pariarchal, then why didn't they force their women to do these jobs?

I'm not saying women or men have it worse. Just that the argument is more nuanced than saying any inequality between the gender is due to social conditiong / patriarchy.