Men Inequality: are men falling behind in society?

[John K]

Jesus was clearly a man and is essentially representative of the Father.

I think this was really a matter of practicality, to fit in with the prevailing culture he was born into. God is also recognised in female terms in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament in the form of Sophia, so the Bible isn't dogmatic on this. But it would have been impossible for God to have achieved what he did through Jesus in such patriarchal societies as a woman.

But God is spirit and genderless - even for us, as Jesus said to the Sadducees, there is no marrying in the afterlife, and gender ceases to be of worldly significance there as far as I can see. Of course he embodies the ultimate role of father, because as creator he engendered us and adopted us as brothers and sisters of Jesus - but that doesn't mean God as spirit is male. It's equally valid to see God as our mother too for example.

An extract from the Catholic Catechism which throws some light on this:

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.​

 

[slant]

It's kinda true, kinda not true.

I'm usually coming from a anthropological evolutionary perspective so here is the slant from that lens.

In most hunter gatherer non agricultural societies, men because of their superior physical prowess were set up to defend and hunt for food. It was a better investment of resources for women who were not as physically capable to raise children, prepare food, etc.

Technology is the leading driver for changes in gender roles in human evolution. As technology advances in a society, gender roles can become more fluent because technology starts to outsource a lot of the brute manual work that was originally assigned to men, and can make it possible for women to perform on a more equal level in these tasks with the assistance of technology.

As you keep going with technological development, you get to the stage where for the most part brute manual labor is not a major part of day to day life and much work is either focused on people skills or intellectually based pursuits. Men might have a edge in STEM but with computers doing a lot of the work again women are on more even ground.

Men are evolutionary wired to take on more risk. This is why women to this day far outlive men in lifespan. Men are more likely to die in war, high risk activities like motorcycle accidents, gang related crime, etc. Women just are less inclined to that behavior. They are wired to be risk adverse and cautious. In a world where life is more and more comfortable and threats are more and more abstract and emotionally based, women excel.

There are still plenty of areas where men excel that women don't. Women aren't going to excel in aggressive pursuits even with technology, that's not what they're inclined towards. Really what was happened is that the world has become softer and less risky and women can function pretty well in that. Men used to dominate because of their aggression and now it's just not as important.

 

[slant]

Good for life by what standard? We can't use technology to bypass humanity. If anything, it makes it more dangerous because it allows us to ignore it, while every choice we make remains embedded in our condition. You have to see that the very language you use here illustrates that. Once you start talking about good, you set a cornerstone for a religion. Then, you can either appeal to an external standard or assume the role of moral arbiter yourself. But if there exist any laws of morality that you want to rediscover with technology, they obviously haven't been written by us any more than the laws of physics. We have been uncovering the hypothetical optimal pattern of human habituation for thousands of years, and every time we ended up in religion.

Shouldn't and can't are completely different things.

You can say we shouldn't, but in fact we're doing it. I can't name a single technologically-caused social change that's happened and been reversed. It's sort of like, once you do it, it can't be undid. The only way we are going to go back to more traditional roles is if technology fails and the roles are by necessity. Society is continuing to advanced with the changes on a social level whether or not they are traditional or religious or whatever criteria you're using to determine what they should be. Fact remains that people respond to stimuli and adapt to it as needed. If people are adapting in a way that is not going to long term help with survival, when that is realized it'll revert back to whatever did enable survival. That's just how instinct works.

Now, if it doesn't ever revert back, well, that pretty much means for the current environment it's a more successful strategy. Could the current environment be unsustainable and doomed to fail? Yep, it probably is. Long term thinking isn't something human civilizations are good at. Usually we just ride on whatever we got until it fails then change to something else. Sometimes it's too late to change to something else and civilizations collapse. So it goes.

 

[aeon]

If I try and simplify it all (poor choice as a Ne-dom ), I think the big arc is this:

(I’m using “world” in the sense of the West, culturally relevant to me, and “men” as default hetcis, so save your offense—this is painting with a broad brush time...paint will be spilled)

Not so long ago, men were told how to be, and what to do, in order to succeed within a system, both socio-economic and religious-political. And in general, it worked as intended. I’m not saying this was good or bad.

Around 50 years ago, women decided for themselves (and rightly so) how to be, and what to do, and they changed in ways that benefitted them, benefitted many men, but ultimately benefitted economic systems most of all.

Because women and systems changed, how men engaged with those things, by necessity, needed to change as well.

A few men realized this, and did so, but many more were told this and did not understand or accept, or were unwilling to change, or did not listen at all. And time marched on.

The new reality of the world needed a new approach. But a curious thing happened. We didn’t change our shared definition of man. The defined gender roles of masculinity—or what it is to be a man, how to be a man, and what a man should do—these things did not change.

Many of those assigned roles no longer work in the world—a world where men’s primary engagements have changed. And because men’s roles are often performative, men’s experience of being manly is one of growing inappreciation, inappropriateness, and punitive shaming.

New game, but no new rules on how to play, and the old rules don’t reliably work with either women or systems. Either functionally, or as a long-term approach which yields success, as a normative man would define that.

Men understand that the old rules of the game will not work, but they haven’t been given any new rules—at least as it concerns being a man. Women have given—and are giving—men new rules. But the system is not, for it cannot. There is no longer a reasonable change to succeed with the system.

It’s a problem when you ask, and tell, a man to be different, and then punish him for doing so, because he has willfully deviated from the narrow and rigid roles he has been assigned. This occurs in both the personal and the vocational domains.

With agendas other than the men themselves, various groups wage a culture war, trying to “save” men by either doubling-down on the way it used to be, or by overturning the apple cart and setting it on fire.

It’s 2023. No one is asking what the men need, or what they want. And because men are socialized to keep a stiff upper lip, the conversation which would be of help will necessarily be delayed. Also, men are hard-pressed to find time in their schedule for those things not demonstrably productive.

I said broad brush. So if it feels like I did you dirty, I apologize. Any time one asserts about men or women or otherwise in the general, uncountable numbers are disrespected, the group so spoken about most of all. I didn’t forget you.

-------

So yeah, boys and men are falling behind and are being left behind.

• set boys up to fail by socializing out those things that would help them
• upon reaching adulthood, shame young men for failing at the game of life
• remind them of the rules to the game which no longer exists for them to play
• punish and pathologize those aspects of being a man you want to disappear
• whine “not that way” when men try something different, then demand their compliance
• never decide upon a set of rules which are grounded in tradition *while also* meeting the need for change
• be hard about men’s suffering, and pain, and loss, because it’s not manly to care
• wring hands as men give up, and go their own way, to whatever end, fair or foul
• know what to do, but be unwilling to do it, and point out men don’t want it either
• cultivate a bitter garden of shame, despair, hopelessness, and meaninglessness
• eat of that fruit whilst talking about the weather and other things of insignificance
• and never fail to remind a little boy that “big boys don’t cry”

Cheers,
Ian

 

[John K]

@aeon

Well expressed. There is a hidden danger in all this too, because our biological hard wiring is not always over-ridden by civilised cultural forces. I think this is why many disaffected youths and young men end up in street gangs where their traditional male roles are watered and fed, and they can find affirmation from their group. I think many men need a hierarchical command structure with an alpha male at the top and this too they find in gangs - or more respectably in military organisations. I suspect that this sort of social rebellion is going on a lot in the dark cellars of our culture among the most disaffected and disadvantaged people.

I'm not talking about the majority of course, far from it.

Personally, I find those sort of groups rather horrifying because I'm not a group person, and that's quite apart from the crimes or acts of violence that they engage in - but I can understand why they form.

 

[aeon]

There is a hidden danger in all this too, because our biological hard wiring is not always over-ridden by civilised cultural forces.

True, but I’m a bit confused why so many seek to make it all or nothing.

The biology, even as it varies, is factual, and objective.

The cultural constructs of assigned gender, gender identity, and gender expression—man and woman and otherwise—are, to a varying degree, grounded in that biology. Those constructs are subjective, and although they may encompass nearly-limitless, nonexclusive, and conflicting definitions, they cannot, and do not, override or transcend the biology.

Each and every is some mix of hard wiring and software. As a social species with cultures, we are both animal and human, flesh and self-awareness made one. The biology is the basis, but it does not decide. The cognition decides, but within a framework it does not control.

Saying one or the other is, or should be, the winner of some battle, is misguided to say the least. If gendered identity is to assume a throne, it is a throne of biological life beyond human comprehension.

I think this is why many disaffected youths and young men end up in street gangs where their traditional male roles are watered and fed, and they can find affirmation from their group. I think many men need a hierarchical command structure with an alpha male at the top and this too they find in gangs - or more respectably in military organisations. I suspect that this sort of social rebellion is going on a lot in the dark cellars of our culture among the most disaffected and disadvantaged people.

Absolutely. In the absence and failure of more typical socializations, gangs and militias define who the members are (men), prove which kind of men (men of agency and power), how a man should be and not be (discipline), and in exchange, those men meet two of the most powerful human needs—self-respect/esteem, and belonging.

Women will do that too, should a situation require it, but it looks different. And that’s because those needs are exactly as I said—human. No one escapes those if they live in a society of others.

Choose to not provide opportunity for a man to find or earn self-worth or the acceptance of others in a society, and he will find a way, oftentimes in spite of the disavowal. And I will watch, and I will pray for the society, cheer on the one who found a way, and watch the flames of chaos rise ever higher, and I will be filled with the schadenfreude of it all.

I'm not talking about the majority of course, far from it.

It’s only 2023. The majority groups are beginning to coalesce, but I don’t think many appreciate that yet. That said, governments do, so those on the vanguard, like Tate, are being taken out. But he will come. That leader who inspires an army of focused disaffection. That will be closer to end-times, as we know them, but perhaps not so far away.

Personally, I find those sort of groups rather horrifying because I'm not a group person, and that's quite apart from the crimes or acts of violence that they engage in - but I can understand why they form.

Yes, but have you ever imagined flipping the script, and committing loving acts with wild abandon? A group that willfully ignores social convention to achieve human connection, and once done, seeks to commit an act of service?

Not in a sober, meaningful way. I mean a way that will at first surprise, because of the color, and sound, and light, and donned narwhal horns. I’m talking drive-by smooches and the illicit distribution of the best feelings. Hugs if they want.

All based in consent of course. But imagine a “we-pals” conspiring to show you how special you are. Love not just as an action, but as a tactic.

Yes, I’m talking a kind of smack, but it is from the deepest part of me. I just haven’t figured it all out yet.

Best to You,
Ian

 

[slant]

I was going to just leave this as a profile message but wasn't able to due to privacy settings - @mintoots , really great thread. One of my faves. Great discussion starter.

 

[mintoots]

Just one other thought. The USA is obviously a major society, but the world is much bigger than that. I don't get the impression that these issues that are affecting the Western culture are the same in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It would be interesting to see what a comparative study of men's roles would look like across the world.

Solid points, @John K. Interestingly, the drowning out of the women's view could very well go back to the Witch's hunt. How and when did paternalism emerge? It's always a power struggle, apparently.

We can't use technology to bypass humanity

No, not my point. In mentioning improving technology, I mean to point it out its growth as technology becoming a more potent tool of analysis. I'm not saying tech will command us all, though AI potentially, arguably could*, I'm saying technology allows us more empirical data upon which to build our intuition and decisions on. Good analysis = better societal decisions for the balance of all living things.

Good for life by what standard?

You speak of the quality of life in an experiential sense. Here, my unit of analysis is more along the distribution and appropriation of opportunities for life and living. Although the two are not essentially disjointed, I am of the perception that the societal structures create opportunities and that the interpretation of such opportunities may be relative to individuals. I am more talking about opportunities for all genders in terms of access to utiliarian tools of existence, which in today's society is apparently access to prestige, beauty, and money.

*My position on the capacity of AI to overtake the human specie isn't solid, but the propensity for error has me thinking it is unlikely for generations to come.

We have been uncovering the hypothetical optimal pattern of human habituation for thousands of years, and every time we ended up in religion.

This is highly debatable in that religion has also succeeded to ostracize and exclude, which in its essence is difficult to interpret as good. Good by what standards? The interpretation of good is relative. What technology allows is a more rational construct of good. I am returning to the balances of nature. I am of the opinion that we can potentially compute goodness as that which allows the sustainability of healthy paradoxes. Again, I am speaking of the distribution of opportunities for life and not the individual's qualitative experience of it.

A bit of an aside - though it is tangentially relevant to the main theme of the thread.

Agreed.

It's obvious humanity is returning to Space for its religion.
A non-binary One born out of Three.
It just makes sense, however you want to contextualize it, justify it, or articulate it.

I just had to pull-out a Matrix reference somehow, somewhere. mehehe. I mean I have to mention it even though it isn't mentioned. LOL.

It's difficult to update the symbolism when everyone is inoculated with a purely scientific perspective.

Similarly, it is difficult to talk about economic and societal opportunities from a rational, policy-making, decision-making enabling purview when we are only revolving around the experiences embedded in individual perspectives. Experiences are valid, absolutely so. All voices are critical to forming a bigger picture, and individual experiences come front and center to the meaningful depth of that. My inquiry is hoping to lean toward seeking opinions that could either validate Reeve's points or argue against it as blanketly applicable, even if only in a U.S. Context. A big picture inquiry likely requires more empirical input hence the value of the scientific structure in addressing that inquiry.

I have a great deal of compassion for men, especially men's mental health and the pressure and stress men carry in society. The way our society works hurts men, too. We need a lot of growth, and we need to find a way to stabilize men's identities and worth.

Men have been at the top in society for a very long time, particularly white men, while others have had fewer rights, both legally and in society, fewer advantages, and fewer resources. As society catches up and people (as a whole) become more equal, those at the top with feel the crunch. As the saying goes, "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." This is going to sting more for underprivileged men (for example, poor men) who have never reaped the benefits of the privilege and for people who were told all their lives that they would have certain rewards when they reached each rung on the ladder. (I suggest younger generations who feel this way talk to Gen X about this because we were the first modern generation to do worse than our parents and miss out on the promised rewards.)

This has a lot to do with class, too.

As change occurs, each side pushes hard. Some are extreme, and some overcompensate. This is part of growth. Some liberals are pushing too hard, and some conservatives are pushing too hard. I could dissect and criticize both sides here. The conservative backlash filters into a pipeline of extremely right-wing recruiting, so I'm hesitant to even engage on this topic or give examples of how shaky this period of growth is.

F.D. Signifier often discusses the manosphere and men's issues, so if you're curious check out his YT.

Thank you, @Asa. This is exactly the kind of opinion I am seeking. I wanted to see how most people in the US viewed this. Is it likely? Is it true? Do American men need to be helped? It seems the conversations have to be more nuanced in order to capture the factors that have been pointed

It's kinda true, kinda not true.

I'm usually coming from a anthropological evolutionary perspective so here is the slant from that lens.

In most hunter gatherer non agricultural societies, men because of their superior physical prowess were set up to defend and hunt for food. It was a better investment of resources for women who were not as physically capable to raise children, prepare food, etc.

Technology is the leading driver for changes in gender roles in human evolution. As technology advances in a society, gender roles can become more fluent because technology starts to outsource a lot of the brute manual work that was originally assigned to men, and can make it possible for women to perform on a more equal level in these tasks with the assistance of technology.

As you keep going with technological development, you get to the stage where for the most part brute manual labor is not a major part of day to day life and much work is either focused on people skills or intellectually based pursuits. Men might have a edge in STEM but with computers doing a lot of the work again women are on more even ground.

Men are evolutionary wired to take on more risk. This is why women to this day far outlive men in lifespan. Men are more likely to die in war, high risk activities like motorcycle accidents, gang related crime, etc. Women just are less inclined to that behavior. They are wired to be risk adverse and cautious. In a world where life is more and more comfortable and threats are more and more abstract and emotionally based, women excel.

There are still plenty of areas where men excel that women don't. Women aren't going to excel in aggressive pursuits even with technology, that's not what they're inclined towards. Really what was happened is that the world has become softer and less risky and women can function pretty well in that. Men used to dominate because of their aggression and now it's just not as important.

Good points. Experientially, do you think the men around you would somehow second Reeve's take? I'm careful in accepting his views because it could very simply be a backlash for the sake of backlash. It is indeed an eye-opener, but I am more inclined to seeing that class is the bigger driver behind it. I am hereby opening a can of worms, but I am of the unsupported opinion that the capitalistic construct is what defeats certain classes that do not exempt men of certain skin colors either.

 

[Wyote]

I just had to pull-out a Matrix reference somehow, somewhere. mehehe. I mean I have to mention it even though it isn't mentioned. LOL.

 

[mintoots]

Could the current environment be unsustainable and doomed to fail? Yep, it probably is

Yes, I think so too. Energy and resources are finite. We are attempting to use technology to help us circumvent that finity.

Just to go along the tangent of the God conversation subsumed within this thread, I have a feeling God will persist even with the annhillation of the Milky Way because God is God and dope like that. If reincarnation were any factual, we will probably re-emerge as Mrs. Thanos in Planet 1038305i96, soon enough.

Around 50 years ago, women decided for themselves (and rightly so) how to be, and what to do, and they changed in ways that benefitted them, benefitted many men, but ultimately benefitted economic systems most of all.

We were totally oppressed. American cities delegated us to car-less household maintenance while the "men" went downtown to talk balls and smoke cigars. I mean, we had to nag, surely.

New game, but no new rules on how to play,

Yes! Now, what should be the new rules of the game? Is it the elimination of gender constructs as in its complete annhilation? Do you think the male biology would cope?

@aeon

Well expressed. There is a hidden danger in all this too, because our biological hard wiring is not always over-ridden by civilised cultural forces. I think this is why many disaffected youths and young men end up in street gangs where their traditional male roles are watered and fed, and they can find affirmation from their group. I think many men need a hierarchical command structure with an alpha male at the top and this too they find in gangs - or more respectably in military organisations. I suspect that this sort of social rebellion is going on a lot in the dark cellars of our culture among the most disaffected and disadvantaged people.

I'm not talking about the majority of course, far from it.

Personally, I find those sort of groups rather horrifying because I'm not a group person, and that's quite apart from the crimes or acts of violence that they engage in - but I can understand why they form.

I just have to ask. Are there similar patterns emerging in the UK?

Yes, but have you ever imagined flipping the script, and committing loving acts with wild abandon? A group that willfully ignores social convention to achieve human connection, and once done, seeks to commit an act of service?

I was thinking this. Why does it still have to be taboo to have a man who likes to cook and care for the kids and the pets? I mean, why not, right? After all, house maintenance requires a lot of muscle work too. Gender need not be the single-most definer of life paths.

I was going to just leave this as a profile message but wasn't able to due to privacy settings - @mintoots , really great thread. One of my faves. Great discussion starter.

Ei. Thanks

 

[slant]

good points. Experientially, do you think the men around you would somehow second Reeve's take? I'm careful in accepting his views because it could very simply be a backlash for the sake of backlash. It is indeed an eye-opener, but I am more inclined to seeing that class is the bigger driver behind it. I am hereby opening a can of worms, but I am of the unsupported opinion that the capitalistic construct is what defeats certain classes that do not exempt men of certain skin colors either.

I have no idea, I would have to do a survey. My sense is that the men in my life are very pro capitalism and think that classism is being wildly exaggerated, that the class divide is more equal today than it has been in the majority of human history. I talked to my bf about this and he brought up that in Scandinavia as equality of genders has increased that in fact women gravitated to the HEAL jobs naturally and men to STEM jobs. So he thinks the idea of trying to encourage a gender to work in a certain field because there is less of them doesn't make any sense. He thinks it's biologically motivated so trying to make people go against their nature is a societal movement not based in reality, only ideology.

 

[aeon]

So he thinks the idea of trying to encourage a gender to work in a certain field because there is less of them doesn't make any sense.

Consider that representation is important, especially as it concerns engaging with children.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

We were totally oppressed. American cities delegated us to car-less household maintenance while the "men" went downtown to talk balls and smoke cigars. I mean, we had to nag, surely.

Oh, certainly. But women got done dirty because their gender roles were not changed. Yes, have a career, but you’re still on the hook for all kinds of free domestic labor. Women were sold on “you can do anything,” but what they got was “you will do everything.” (of course I highlight this with my Marxist feminist focus)

Business loved it. Cheaper labor, more disposable income. Soon, you needed two incomes.

Women are still oppressed. Men are still oppressed. Otherwise are still oppressed. No one wins.

We have come a long way. We have a long way to go.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

Yes! Now, what should be the new rules of the game? Is it the elimination of gender constructs as in its complete annhilation? Do you think the male biology would cope?

I don’t know, ask a man.

I may have burn it down to allow new growth tendencies, but gender exists for most people—it’s not going away.

Male gender roles would benefit from being less narrow and rigid, and more expansive, in the sense they would be more inclusive.

Very few males fit the masculine role, yet they live their lives as best they are able. Just as very few females fit the feminine role, yet they find a way and live their lives as best they are able.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

I was thinking this. Why does it still have to be taboo to have a man who likes to cook and care for the kids and the pets? I mean, why not, right? After all, house maintenance requires a lot of muscle work too. Gender need not be the single-most definer of life paths.

It‘s only taboo for people who decide to make it so.

I’ve never been that person, and because I’ve never married, I’ve always done all domestic things myself.

And when I focus, I’m damned good. I can fold a fitted sheet. Behold my powers!

As a teenager, I made good money babysitting because:

• kids loved me
• kids were in bed asleep when their parents got home
• parents would tell other parents
• my diaper acumen was next-level
• I could cook yet not leave dishes
• I did not use the phone or eat anything

Cheers,
Ian

 

[slant]

Consider that representation is important, especially as it concerns engaging with children.

Cheers,
Ian

I see this perspective but I think you can fall on it one way or the other. Some people aren't convinced of socially based movements and so this argument is going to be classified under that-

My bf values efficiency, so to him, he's focused on what is the most immediately efficient for the moment. If one type of person, say women, are more inclined towards certain jobs and excel at them, to him it's going to be a waste of time to try to get less efficient less motivated people to do that job. If they would rather do something else and would be better at it, that's great. Likewise I don't think that he believes there is any correlation between seeing somebody like you doing something and then being influenced to do it because you saw somebody you identify with do that thing. He's more inclined to think that, if you want to do something, you would always want to do it, so it doesn't really matter if you see anybody else doing it or not. I know this argument you're making is crystal clear to you, but the opposite perspective doesn't see any sense in it. It seems like a nonsense argument. I'm not saying that it is, simply that you can't expect somebody who's looking at it from that perspective to ever see validity in "representation" argument. It doesn't align with what they value.

 

[Wyote]

He's more inclined to think that, if you want to do something, you would always want to do it, so it doesn't really matter if you see anybody else doing it or not.

He's wrong on this point.
If you have no modeling, you have less or no motivation.
There are of course outliers in everything, but outliers won't ever change a majority.

As far as the greater discussion here, what most people miss as a key point is-
Things are built due to the values we place on them.
Society could theoretically operate where HEAL was male dominated and STEM was female dominated.
All that would need to change is how each function and the way in which they are valued.
If STEM were perceived as a care taking role (and maybe it will be when AI develops further) and HEAL were viewed as more technical (again it could conceivably change when baby making is viewed in more of a production line sense) then the interest in each would reverse naturally.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

He's wrong on this point.
If you have no modeling, you have less or no motivation.
There are of course outliers in everything, but outliers won't ever change a majority.

As far as the greater discussion here, what most people miss as a key point is-
Things are built due to the values we place on them.
Society could theoretically operate where HEAL was male dominated and STEM was female dominated.
All that would need to change is how each function and the way in which they are valued.
If STEM were perceived as a care taking role (and maybe it will be when AI develops further) and HEAL were viewed as more technical (again it could conceivably change when baby making is viewed in more of a production line sense) then the interest in each would reverse naturally.

I have to disagree with the point that STEM fields can be perceived as care taking because of the natures of inquiry, rigor, criticism, methodology, accuracy, and scrutiny that are necessary to their proper functioning. STEM conclusions can be applied to many different areas and professions including and obviously HEAL ones, but there is a reason that it took 300 years for modern science to emerge, because along with the activity an environment and demand must develop from it that creates an ethic. It's not to say women shouldn't or couldn't participate in STEM it's to say the vast majority won't and the STEM can't, as someone who is educated to participate in a STEM field, be seen as an enterprise as something geared towards care in a direct way as your job is to figure out the best way to model, understand, and think about something and as some others believe get to the truth and this has to be fairly impersonal though humans are subjective and hold values. Nature is more complex than our psychology and to best deal with the reality that it will defy or intuitions, emotions, and instincts we have to keep our focus on modeling, thinking, and understanding or truth seeking, not caring.

STEM has to be something that we can rely on to get to the bottom of what's really taking place in the world and that demand alone is going to discriminate against most people male and female, because it takes an enormous amount of patience, reasoning, and attention that's not typical and takes many years of practice and training to develop. Technology can and has made it easier, but to actually live up to the demands of being a scientist or mathematician will only permit certain kinds of women and men to do the work and neither are going to be representative of the average of their respective populations and it's likely that a greater proportion of men will tend towards the mathematical sciences than their female counterparts, because of the nature of the activity.

I think we should get every available woman we can to do the work, but there is no reason to assume that men and women will be equally represented, or that this should be a goal if the goal truly is to do our best to model, understand, and think about the world around us in whatever way it happens to represent itself. We find even within contemporary STEM fields that women are more represented than their male counterparts within the Biological Sciences and men are represented more within the Physical Sciences than their female counterparts. Sometimes things work the way they do because it's necessary to get a certain result or the best result. Science is hard and very demanding in particular the mathematical sciences are the hardest. Thus, we should let results and outcomes determine the way the sciences work no different than professional sports teams than ideological notions, especially when most people, male or female, quit their training and education before, they can even become scientist while the point of science as an activity are specific outcomes and conclusions.

 

[Wyote]

I have to disagree with the point that STEM can be perceived as care taking because of the natures of inquiry, rigor, criticism, methodology, and scrutiny that are necessary to their proper functioning

That's ok, I'm thinking far outside the box than most would

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

That's ok, I'm thinking far outside the box than most would

You're not really thinking when you're not considering what can or actually will happen.