> No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
You will find it is rarely the case that a peer-reviewed scientific
paper in what is one of the most influential journals in its field
(Psychology in this case) can be dismissed so readily.
I suspect you have not read it. Given it's behind a paywall, the entire
paper is available via sci-hub: https://sci-hub.mu/10.1177/0956797617741719
As you can see if you read it, it only states the correlation, there is
no causation. Indeed, it too like you, I, and most folks expected
different results, that's why they called it the
"educational-gender-equality paradox". It's a paradox - it's doing the
opposite of what is expected - it's quite literally in the title of the
paper.
The core of the paper:
"One of the main findings of this study is that, para-
doxically, countries with lower levels of gender equality
had relatively more women among STEM graduates than
did more gender-equal countries. This is a paradox,
because gender-equal countries are those that give girls
and women more educational and empowerment oppor-
tunities and that generally promote girls’ and women’s
engagement in STEM fields (e.g., Williams & Ceci, 2015)."
They do try and take a guess as to what the reason is for this
(causation), but they make it clear it's just a guess (a "suggestion" as
it's phrased). That doesn't change the core correltation of the paper:
that given more education and empowerment, women choose against STEM.
Or put even more simply: given equal opportunity, it appears men and
women preferentially choose different careers.
> You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50%
I don't have any aim at all in this beyond 100% of people having equal
opportunity to choose whatever career they wish, and I believe FOSS4G
and OSGeo should have a similar aim. Anything else will be a dis-service
to people of both genders.
On 2018-08-12 10:14, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Jonathan Moules
<jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote:
Let me tell you something: having legal rights doesn't mean you have
equal opportunities. Those studies are falling into the wrong
conclusions probably because bias of the researchers.
Apologies, but that's a general dismissal of a peer-reviewed scientific
paper, seemingly because you don't like the result. That's not how science
works. If there is a problem with the paper (and most papers have a few
quirks) I would suggest the correct way to refute it is to start by pointing
out the methodological and/or statistical flaws, not dismissing it out of
hand. If done thoroughly enough you can probably get a subsequent paper
published via peer-review with some other experts in the field that refutes
it which is usually good for career prospects.
Like you I would have expected more women to choose STEM given the
opportunity, but apparently they do the opposite and so I've updated my
world-view accordingly to fit the facts. As the saying goes: You're welcome
to your own opinions, but facts are facts.
No, this is not a dismissal based on opinions. It is based on facts.
This paper falls into the "correlation does not imply causation"
fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
The first and second waves of feminism focused on legal. And we
advanced a lot. But still, this "forces of society" has been detected
and studied since "The Second Sex" of Simone de Beauvoir. There was
this general feeling (the same bias the researches of the studies fall
into) that when you change legality, society will follow happily. But,
as we can see (and study), this is not what happens.
And we should have known it: the same happened when racism was removed
from law country after country: it was not removed from society.
Society follows more slowly, if it follows. Seriously, you should at
least watch the video of Neil.
That's why third/fourth? wave of feminism (depends on how you count
them) are focusing on behavior of society and acceptance.
Anyway, we're heading off-topic. I was originally simply pointing out that
Dar doesn't have gender diversity in the keynotes either (a point I
maintain), and I question the unfounded assertion that 50% females in the
industry/speakers/etc is something that is feasible given the research on
female career preferences. I'll leave it at that.
Cheers,
Jonathan
You can aim for 37%, I will still aim for 50%. And this is not a
change that only OSGeo has to do, but we should push from different
perspectives to get something really done. As said, this is a
long-distance race, and by that I mean: I doubt my generation will
have equal opportunity ever, no matter how hard and how far we get. I
am aiming for the next generation.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
