Studies have shown that women are just as proficient in mathematics, science, and other STEM related fields, as men are. So there is no "intelligence-based" reason as to why women don't have equal, or near-equal representation in STEM industries as men. Beyond this, there are likely multi-variant explanations as to why women lack reasonable representation in STEM, ranging from overt gender discrimination and historical exclusion (e.g. "old boy's club"), subtle societal expectations including the concept of the patriarchal breadwinner, or that the woman should "manage the household" rather than pursue a long-term, meaningful career. I don't think there are any meaningful "trait differences" between men and women that adequately explain this asymmetry.

Since this is in the political philosophy section we might first ask, what kind, and to what extent, can we provide equality for anyone or anything? If what causes of these differences is beyond the scope of the discussion then I don’t see how that can be.

How would you respond to your own question?

I don’t think it has been demonstrated in any modern society that people can provide equality to the satisfaction of those who feel affected by its absence. We certainly can’t legislate it. It is hopefully our goal, but the causes remain far upstream.

It's not whether they are proficient at it, its whether they are interested in it — Mr Phil O'Sophy

An excellent point. Some of the gender gap may be explained by different career preferences between men and women.

One thing to keep in mind, when talking about things like career preferences, is also how those preferences were cultivated in the first place. If it is not seen to be a feminine ideal to be a STEM worker, how likely is it that those preferences will come to be in the first place?

So one must be careful about the status of 'explanation' here. Perhaps X and Y might explain certain things. But that X and Y serve as an explanation at all can itself be something open to critique.

Is something being a masculine or feminine ideal inherently a bad thing? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Not at all.

[Delete] @Baden

I think history is quite a big influence. I mentioned elsewhere that my mother had to give up her job at the bank when she married. It was normal policy before WW2, and considered moral and appropriate that married women should stay at home and look after the house, the husband, and the children. Women were not expected to be in the workplace in any great number at all. Even a working class man could earn enough to keep a family in an acceptable level of poverty.

After the war, there was a labour shortage in the UK, and attitudes magically began to change. These days 'housewife' hardly counts as an occupation at all, it is the same as being unemployed. But the change is not complete. The good life is still gendered, by which I mean that the image of a good woman is still slanted in most people's (both sexes) minds towards caring, nurturing, serving, beautifying, as compared to the hard working, strong persistent competitive good man. Action man and decorative Barbie. It takes more than a generation for society to adapt its morality to the economic requirements that arise in that single generation, and the result is a generation brought up confused and conflicted morally; old fashioned conservative notions fighting modern radical - dare I say 'postmodern'? - ideals both of which seem self-evidently right to their adherents.

Meanwhile, the economy seems to be changing its needs again, such that it needs neither men nor women, and the appropriate good life to that economy is a short one with no offspring. All hail the pessimists, the anti-natalists the singularity apostles, harbingers of the post human economy.

[Delete] @Baden

Well we all like to start with agreeable premises, don't we. My agreeable premise enables me to explain why other people's agreeable premises, such as these:-

We all know that men and women are different. — Purple Pond

There should be equality, — René Descartes

... are somewhat conflictual. We are in the process of changing human nurture to conform with the new needs of the economy. Housewifery has been industrialised through white goods, ready meals, nurseries, and old folks homes, and your morality reflects this, but Purple Pond articulates the lag that remains in social attitudes.

These discussions regarding gender differences and gender equality are really confusing to me.

Based upon standard depictions of (supposedly) masculine and feminine traits, I'm apparently not very manly. I realized that while watching the now famous Jordan Peterson interview that's been the topic of much discussion lately.

Quick examples: I'd rather spend time with my family (and friends, and books, etc.) than slave away at a job 80+ hours a week; I'm not much interested in chasing after the social status and recognition that allegedly inspires manly men to achieve monetary success and career advancement; I would rather engage in cooperative endeavors with others than battle them in a confrontation of egos perceived as a zero-sum game; I'm more interested in the humanities than the sciences; etc.

So I found myself preferring the feminine in these dichotomies as presented by the likes of Peterson. Rather than question my manhood (not that I really care to defend it either) I started questioning the guiding assumptions at work concerning what the term implies.

In addition to the supposedly feminine preferences I mentioned above, I can be extremely assertive when the situation calls for it, I will not shy away from a violent confrontation if I feel myself or those I care about to be threatened or even blatantly disrespected, etc. Not trying to sound like a tough guy but I do think those silly personal examples call the rigid stereotypes and sharp contrasts into question.

Also, not to be overly concerned about what others think of you seems much more manly than being enslaved to their opinions, and that latter phenomena seems to drive much of the behavior typically perceived as a characteristic of masculinity. Likewise, to engage others in ways that are more friendly than adversarial may be perceived as a sign of confidence and strength rather than timidity and weakness. Etc.

In fact, I'd imagine that one who feels genuinely secure in his manhood may have an increased openness to other, more "feminine" traits, whereas a lack of confidence in your prowess as a man may lead to the opposite. "Real" men being much less concerned about things normally associated with manhood, like power and status and assertiveness, than insecure men?

There may be and almost surely is a natural component to these gender traits - I admit my ignorance of the relevant studies here - but I do feel like they're socially constructed to a certain (maybe even a large) extent, and also highly exaggerated. I wouldn't say they're completely arbitrary, but they're surely not beyond being challenged either. Maybe even inverted.

The tacit assumption seems to be that the masculine is superior to the feminine: working a lot in order to make money and impress people is superior to choosing other values to order your life, being assertive and combative is superior to being polite and amiable, etc.

I obviously reject these hierarchies, and would even suggest that authentic manliness may involve such seemingly unmanly things as embodying a poetic and "meditative" way of being (so to speak) over the more masculine attributes underlying the autonomous, egotistical, and "calculative" values that have come to dominate our modern world.

Maybe there's a way of integrating these different aspects of ourselves into a more inclusive and harmonious whole. Something akin to what Nietzsche intimated with his hypothetical "higher" man: a Caesar with the soul of Christ.

Apologies for the largely rambling and irrelevant digression here (a quick and obvious example of my non-confrontational feminine nature) but I just wanted to express in some awkward way how much I disagree with the way this conversation is normally pitched in an either/or way.

One can be like me - a straight male with an active sex drive, a love of sports, etc. - while also being (to repeat) generally non-confrontational, non career-oriented, not obsessed with money and status...

Why would women even want to be the "equals" of modern men as long as definitions and indicators of success remain the same is something I find strange. We should all aim beyond that IMHO.

Perhaps some instances of gender inequality can be explained by an irrational discrimination which has nothing to do with the actual traits of women (misogyny for instance). — Purple Pond

Perhaps some instances of women protesting against men can be explained by an irrational discrimination which has nothing to do with the actual traits of men (misandry for instance).

Enough parroting from me. The point is that it is purely an ideological battle. Do women really want an equality? Do women really want to be represented even in low-paid hard physical labour fields? No.

They, as anyone else - this goes for all people - follow their own self interest. That has nothing to do with equality or inequality in our society. As long as they gain political and economic power for themselves, they are happy. There is no reason for excluding 'women' from using such tactics that are commonly used in all sorts of ideological battles.

Check news from International Women's Day and tell me it is not a piece of propaganda.

It's not whether they are proficient at it, its whether they are interested in it. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I think this sums up a large part of the problem. The request for equality appears to only go as far as it is concerned with the high paying jobs (managerial positions, government positions etc).

There isnt much argument or incentive to get women to do, as you rightly point out, low paid hard physical labour positions. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Bingo, :up: :up: :up:

Actually, that's true! :O Where are the 50-50% female coal miners? :rofl:

It's a problem for 90% of CEOs to be men, but it's not a problem for 90% of coal mine workers to be men :rofl:

By the way, relating to what @StreetlightX was saying, neither men nor women are encouraged to be coal mine workers - our culture doesn't do that. So why is it then that mostly men end up being coal mine workers? I would say the difference in physical strength, which is to a certain extent biological, certainly plays a role. In addition to that there could be the culturally mediated attitude which discourages women from taking risks in terms of their health - though it's not only cultural, it's also biological, since the mother must keep the children she caries in her womb safe, if she dies, the children die too - but if the man dies, the children can still survive.

Actually, that's true! :O Where are the 50-50% female coal miners? — Agustino

There's actually quite a high percentage of female coal miners, especially in the Appalachian US. This is more to do with the availability of jobs, however. Given a wider selection of careers, coal mining women would likely not mine coal in as high a number as they do now.

And since I should probably contribute more to this thread, I'll say this: the error many people make when considering gender equality is failing to recognize the role that equity plays in the "conversation." If there are a hundred coal miners in West Virginian town X, and 70 of them are men, 30 of them women, the disproportional or unequal number of workers does not mean that there exists an inequity in the workplace. The failure to consider equity in relation to equality is what, in my opinion, has spawned such systems as affirmative action, for example.

No, obviously they couldn't be put merely down to societal rules.

The interesting thing that many postmodernist thinkers don't take into account is to ask themselves why gendered roles were distributed as they were distributed in society to begin with? They always start at a later point, once the structure is already in place, and then proceed to identify that the structure is (now) socially enforced. The interesting question is why did this particular social structure become socially enforced in the first place? The answer must be something that predates the social structure and hence social organisation in the first place, hence the answer must be in some potentialities allowed by biology.

For example, the asymmetrical distribution of physical strength between men and women has allowed, at certain times in the past, oppression to occur. Clearly, the stronger party can always oppress the weaker one if it so decides. We organise our societies in such a way that we try to prevent the stronger party from using its superior power to oppress the weaker. One of the reasons why we organise ourselves in societies is to protect the weaker. But just because we do that, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware that there are some foundational differences.

There's actually quite a high percentage of female coal miners — Buxtebuddha

https://www.miningreview.com/infographic-women-in-the-mining-industry-what-the-stats-say/

Only 9% of workers in the mining industry are women.

I don't think we tested, but we have a few active female members.

Let's say TPF has 50 or so very active members. Out of those, probably 10 or so are women. So that would be like 20%. That would be my guess. But it's mostly men on philosophy forums generally.

They, as anyone else - this goes for all people - follow their own self interest. — Coldlight

What is the relationship between self interest and social interest?

It is my view that there can be a difference between self interest and social interest only in societies which are internally divided. In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity.

But if the society is a unity, then each individual part feels the sadness & the happiness of the others as if it were its own. Much like if your toe is hurting, then your whole body is hurting and your whole body is concerned about your toe and will fight for it to do something about the pain. That's because you are a unity.

So in a similar manner, the state of our society only reflects our lack of unity & harmony. Imagine, for example, that you owned a company that controlled 100% of all the world's economy - there were no other companies. What would you do then, because everything is already yours, there is nothing more that you can take? Well, clearly, your interest would be to maintain harmony and ensure that everyone is kept happy - that's what makes things the simplest for you and keeps you in power. So you'd structure production to achieve this goal - that would be your interest. Your interest only becomes twisted if, for example, you depend on a handful of people to maintain power, so you form a unity together with them, against everyone else.

So our current social system and mode of economic organisation can only exist on the background of an external enemy. But this is not a strong society. Neither are companies organised along these competitive lines strong companies.

John D. Rockefeller who was one of the richest men historically ran away from competition like from the devil - for him, it was all about cooperation. He became the richest man, and Standard Oil owned 90% of the oil market (until the government broke him up - for no reason really), precisely because he co-opted everyone else who was in the oil business and organised them to work together - prior to Rockefeller, the oil industry was cut-throat competition, and everyone was struggling to make any money in it. Then they all started making money, and because of efficiencies in production due to economies of scale, oil actually became cheaper than ever.

And it's not just Rockefeller, pretty much every smart businessman realised this. Even Peter Thiel talks about it in Zero to One - (aiming for your business to be a monopoly - which is really the same as saying a community).

Before I read your post, I had done a quick GooSearch for the percentage of women in mining, and I looked at the same site you posted. Did you notice that was "MINING REVIEW Africa? Not that Africans don't count.

Here's a quote from a report by the Colorado School of Mines which is applicable to the US:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 13 percent of the mining industry is now female compared with less than 6 percent at the time of Gibbs’ graduation. At Mines, 17 percent of mining engineering degrees in 2013 were awarded to women compared with 6 percent in 1998. And, interestingly, the new head of the Department of Mining Engineering, Priscilla Nelson, who took over the reins in January, is the first woman ever to head the department.

These are all steps in the right direction, says Jessica Kogel, a senior manager at Imerys with close ties to Mines. But she and others say the industry should do more to take advantage of the attributes women leaders can bring to a company. A new report published by PricewaterhouseCoopers in collaboration with Women in Mining (UK), ‘Mining for Talent 2014,’ states that mining ranks dead last among global industries when it comes to women in leadership positions. Among the world’s top 500 mining companies, only 7.2 percent of directorships are held by women. Among the top 100, women make up just 10.3 percent of boards of directors.

There is still some underground mining in the US, but most of (like in coal, iron ore) is open pit and the hard labor is done by machines operated by people who are dwarfed by the equipment.

to maintain harmony and ensure that everyone is kept happy - that's what makes things the simplest for you and keeps you in power. — Agustino

Do you really think that ensuring everyone is kept happy is the simplest thing to do? From my experience, keeping even several people happy at the same time can be very difficult. Of course, if you control 100% of the world economy... You can just define happiness as drinking Agu Cola; and if you don't like Agu Cola, well, maybe it is time for you to consider another planet.

John D. Rockefeller who was one of the richest men historically ran away from competition like from the devil - for him, it was all about cooperation. He became the richest man, and Standard Oil owned 90% of the oil market (until the government broke him up - for no reason really), precisely because he co-opted everyone else who was in the oil business and organised them to work together - prior to Rockefeller, the oil industry was cut-throat competition, and everyone was struggling to make any money in it. Then they all started making money, and because of efficiencies in production due to economies of scale, oil actually became cheaper than ever. — Agustino

Rockefeller's "cooperation" was achieved through a web of deception, devious transactions, and crude power. Of course Standard Oil was profitable -- if you control 90% of the business, you jolly well ought to be profitable. And Standard Oil and its descendants (like Exxon Mobil, et al) have remained profitable. Oil companies were, are, and will be profitable because the world's economy came to be organized on a foundation of plentiful, cheap oil.

In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity. — Agustino

Some observers think we do live in a parallel society, as you described. That might be an extreme interpretation of reality, but there is certainly some parallel-ness in US society. Many black people almost live in a different state than white people. Poor people have very little in common with rich people (in many, not all, respects). POMO "intellectuals" often seem to inhabit a different universe, let alone a parallel track in this society.

Rockefeller's "cooperation" was achieved through a web of deception, devious transactions, and crude power. — Bitter Crank

No, very likely this wasn't the case, despite Ida Tarbell's account, which was more vilification than truth. Ron Chernow's biography is more accurate.

How do we know this? Because a lot of the producers who sold out to Rockefeller remained in the business working for Standard Oil, and many of them became very rich, millionaires. So going from starving oil producer to millionaire is quite an improvement I would think, no?

@Erik mentions a controversial interview with Jordan Peterson that discusses this issue. Here is a link to that interview in case you haven't seen it. @Mr Phil O'Sophy posted it in his "Jordan Peterson’s Argument in standard form.." discussion.

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54

I found it interesting.

Still very similar percentage points, 9% vs 13%.

Nevertheless, I did think that data may be for Africa, but I'm actually not sure. NSW Minerals Council is an Australian organisation, dealing mostly with mining in Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSW_Minerals_Council

A writer in Quillette proposed that the discussion of transgenderism ought to be based on actual biology, rather than the more political foundation we see.

I would say the same thing about gender, in general, but I can not imagine a discussion occurring about male/female similarities and differences (based on biology, for one, social roles, for two, psychological characteristics for three) that didn't end up in the usual shooting match.

I think there is such a thing as "human nature" which is a stable piece of our reality--but it isn't the whole thing. But even claiming that "human nature" exists, native to our species, and isn't socially determined might cause a riot on campus. Stating the idea that men and women have different interests inherent in their gender is just an intolerable act to the social constructionists.