Topic: Feminism in the Scientific Field and Scepticism Movement

[hotchner a]

I'm wondering if anyone can enlighten me on the reasons behind feminist movement in the field of science or scepticism.
I understand that there are much lesser women than men, but what exactly is the reason for encouraging women to join the scientific field or the scepticism movement? Is there a problem with sexism in the scientific and scepticism field that causes women to be able to achieve less in comparison to men? If yes, what are the problems and why? If no, why the feminist movement then, why not leave them to do what they want? Or are these the wrong questions to ask? I simply want to know why feminism exist in the scientific field and scepticism movement.

Disclaimer: I am not an anti-feminist, nor am I a feminist; merely a curious mind.

[Citizen Skeptic]

I think we ought to work on just getting more people into the movement, regardless of sex. On the otherhand, I think there is a lack of Cubans in the skeptical movement and I would like to see TAM reach out to us, preferably in Spanish.

[Karyn]

I think we ought to work on just getting more people into the movement, regardless of sex. On the otherhand, I think there is a lack of Cubans in the skeptical movement and I would like to see TAM reach out to us, preferably in Spanish.

Ben Radford did articles in Spanish for the now defunct Pensar magazine.  Not sure why it went defunct.

I think we need more of everyone, including white males.  Like, all of the worlds would be awesome.

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

Firstly, Women are people and since we need people, to keep people, and to be good for people, we need to be good for them, too. 

Secondly, it is not healthy, when reveling in our humanness, to crush women with said revelry.

[seaotter]

I tell you part of my reasoning. To echo CS the more the merrier. But from a practical standpoint when I see an underrepresented demographic I see an opportunity. People are people there is a group of women or blacks or whatever who are interested just like u's the minority of the overall population of white males. There is some reason they aren't participating. It may be easier to get folks with some barriers but basic interest rather than the great unwashed who wants to watch oprah.

[Citizen Skeptic]

Ben Radford did articles in Spanish for the now defunct Pensar magazine.  Not sure why it went defunct.

You answered your own question!

The title is a little awkward tense-wise too.

But back to your point, which is also mine, we need more skeptics period.

[Citizen Skeptic]

I tell you part of my reasoning. To echo CS the more the merrier. But from a practical standpoint when I see an underrepresented demographic I see an opportunity.

Me too, but strictly from a marketing point of view.

[Plastique]

I think we need more of everyone, including white males.  Like, all of the worlds would be awesome.

This is a bit tangential. I agree with you, but I'd change the emphasis. My ideal scenario is that a more skeptical, critical way of thinking is ubiquitous rather than having more self-identifying skeptics as such (which is possibly not what you mean, anyway). It's subtle, but I don't think they're the same thing. The former has far more potential than the latter.

[goodthink]

Diversity, diversity, diversity!


Everything is made better by diversity.

[Oh Henry]

Diversity, diversity, diversity!


Everything is made better by diversity.

My sarcasm detector is on the fritz today.  Can someone give me a ruling, here?

[341gerbig]

I will withhold my opinion for now.

[Anders]

Diversity, diversity, diversity!


Everything is made better by diversity.

That's easy to say, but how do we change to make the environment more female-friendly. Apparently it is insufficiently female-friendly or we would have more women. And are we willing to make those changes?

[Citizen Skeptic]

OK, I'll put my chin out - the only diversity that matters is of opinion/thought/knowledge/ideas - all things that are gender/race/whatever neutral.

Also, "the scientific field" really means some engineering jobs here. For example, I think the medical profession is pretty close to 50/50 and IIRC, there are more women than men graduating with medical degrees.

[Oh Henry]

That's easy to say, but how do we change to make the environment more female-friendly. Apparently it is insufficiently female-friendly or we would have more women. And are we willing to make those changes?

Explicit bias exists, but I think its a relatively small part of the problem.  If it were significant, we'd see academic departments getting their doors beaten down by women, who then walk away a year or two later because it wasn't a female-friendly environment.  (Not that women don't face explicit discrimination in under/grad school; they certainly do.)  But women just aren't enrolling in STEM classes or declaring majors in STEM fields at the rate men are.  The main problem starts years earlier when girls feel deterred, for whatever reason, from considering a college major and/or a career in science in the first place.

[goodthink]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Studies have show diversity can trump IQ and even specialized knowledge.


Often the solution to a problem lays outside a specific relam of experience. So, a collection of people with the same framing usually produce the same results. You need input from people outside the standard frame.