That's not "a" study, it's from a metastudy.
Yeah. a metastudy by a doctorate candidate. So brilliant, no one has heard of her neither before nor after, and the only reason we have heard of her at all, is that she manipulated the numbers to show, what progressives wanted to see.
Where are you getting that quote from the paper?
Those words are from the article you linked to. The popular text describing the paper.
There absolutely are some very demonstrable differences in certain psychological regards
Oh, wow. Great. Now, if psychology is affected — and we also know, that muscles are — could there not be other differences, subtle and otherwise? Could those hormones, that cause women to dress more provocatively and buy provocative clothes during fertility periods, be also having an effect on work and other pursuits?
We are approaching the question with different axioms — and come to different conclusions. You say: "Genders are equal, therefor any sign of differences proves sexism". I say: "There is little to no sexism, therefor the observed differences prove, genders are different."
Some of our arguments (all of yours, actually) are simply variations of the above...
Oh please, you're not seriously going to pretend that there weren't tremendous pressures in Victorian society for women to not be involved in STEM-style careers
Queen Victoria died in 1901. According to NPR, female participation in programming was on par with men until 1984. I don't buy NPR's explanations, but I believe their facts. Whatever the reason for females losing interest in mid-80ies, blaming "Victorian era" for it is stupid today and was stupid 30 years ago. Find yourself something else to blame...
But if you continue to insist, it is American "parochial" ("bigoted", "backwards", "retarded") attitudes, that are to blame, then you must first explain, why women in the even more parochial countries (like all of the ex-USSR) are doing better, rather than worse.
"I'll see your 50% and raise it to 100%" - how does this even make sense?
Here is how it make sense. You wrote: "one can decide that having 50% of the human population having a solid interest in the sort of careers most valuable to the improvement of the human condition is a good thing". I still think, having the entire 100% of the human population — both sexes, that is — having that "solid interest" is an even better thing.
This ridicule is what you get for speaking in (other people's) slogans, instead of your own sentences.
Nobody is talking about disinteresting men from pursuing STEM careers
Why, TFA is talking about exactly that: "for excluded male students by [...] a companion all-boys school that would emphasize English Language Arts". So, did I just catch you lying, or you didn't even read the write-up before posting?
"Are there laws or even customs, that prevent girls from entering a STEM field and excelling in it" - it's like you didn't even read my post.
I read it, and I still don't know, what you are talking about. "Victorian era"? Must be it...
And if one person wastes their time trying to become a physicist when they'd have made a better fry cook? Well whoop-di-freaking-doo. The world is still a better place.
No, the world is a worse place, if you force a would-be brilliant singer, designer, or a CEO into becoming a mediocre programmer. She'll spend her life programming in some future equivalent of Cobol (Perl?) and hate her life...
I've met people — male and female — working in a field chosen for reasons other than sincere interest, and I pity them. And certainly would not wish such fate upon anyone else.
The pretense, that gender identity is "learned" destroys lives. Why must you insist on it?