Chelsea Clinton: Getting to the STEM of Gender Inequality

Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2013-04-07 18:02

Article here. Excerpt:

'Lost potential especially abounds in the asymmetrical landscape of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In 2009, 57 percent of college students were women -- an explosion few could have imagined in 1970, when less than 27 percent of female high school graduates enrolled in college. And while we make up almost half of the American workforce, we hold less than 25 percent of STEM jobs.

Indeed, even as women have advanced in the humanities, social sciences and professional fields like law, progress in STEM subjects remains elusive. And in some areas, girls and women are even losing ground. In the mid-1980s, for example, women in the U.S. earned 36 percent of bachelor's degrees awarded in computer science, but that figure dropped to only 20 percent in 2006. Today, women also hold a disproportionately small share of the degrees in majors that strongly correlate to post-college STEM jobs such as math and engineering.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Looks like the younger Clinton's finally publicly coming out as a chip off the old block. Well, hard to say exactly how much so. But she apparently has her mother's tunnel vision when it comes to these terrible "disparities" in STEM field involvement and "unequal wages". It comes down to that vaunted, oft-repeated word heard from feminists, applied aggressively when in the context of women and ignored if not suppressed when in the context of men: choice. Women make *choices*-- all the time. And there are consequences to making choices. You have to live with them. Or, at least you're expected to-- if you're male. If female, the gov't ought to come in and save you from them, if you don't like them. Or so a few too many seem to think.

Major in women's studies or English-- really, do you expect to get a decent job with those degrees? Well, maybe if you come from a well-connected family, sure. But then that's always been the case. But let's say you're the typical college student right after graduation: how you just spent those last 4 years is suddenly very important. Did you make yourself "interesting" by reading lots of 16th century English lit, or employable by learning to code? In a world where ppl with interesting ideas abt classic English authors command little job market demand and where ppl who can program computers do, tell me, what's the basis for decrying "unequal pay"? Is your ability to expound on Chaucer nearly as applicable to the demands of life today as getting computers that are needed to process, say, millions of bank transactions a week (or day)?

Listening to feminists go on abt it, you'd think they actually thought so. I wonder... if half, or even over half, of all STEM field workers were women, would they still not find something else to go on about?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2013-04-08 00:32

Hmm,

She received a History Degree from Stanford and a Public Health Degree from Columbia. Apparently, the men in the US are so bad that they prevented her from completing a STEM degree even with her father being the POTUS!!!!

Or maybe the small number of women in STEM fields of study/work could be accounted by the same reason Chelsea got a history degree instead of a Chemistry degree - Because she just wasn't interested in getting a degree in one of the STEM majors.

The fembot train of thought is to be a victim or be victimize.

Good Grief

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by usfspa2012 on Mon, 2013-04-08 02:22

This is an excerpt from an article in January 2012. This is remarkably socialist and shows an overt passion for the government to control what you do down to your day to day occupation:

The female shortage is attributed to two factors: Women are studying STEM fields in college at a lower rate than men, and many women who earn STEM degrees go on to work in other fields. The White House says it wants to boost the number of minority women studying STEM and encourage women who earn doctorates in STEM fields to do original research. The council also says women should be more interested in green technology careers.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by usfspa2012 on Mon, 2013-04-08 02:25

IMO, It's more like government control of the educational system which will contol both men and women.

The Clinton's are huge supporters of Marc Tucker's "school to work" concept.

In this concept schools will control what occupational field students study. They will have market indicators which will evaluate what type of workers are needed and then steer students into those fields. Very scary.

I urge people to google "Marc Tucker" and his "Dear Hillary Letter". They do not want anyone to escape the control of federal educational teachings (public schools). They are constantly interfering with private schools and homeschoolers making it harder for any entity to educate without government interference.

Public schools/teacher's unions are very much tied to the democratic party. The democrats want to expand public education to include pre-school and community and technical colleges. They get people on board by claiming "free education". It is really a ploy to expand the teacher's union and further the democratic party and their socialist ideas.

PS- if you ever see a homeschool parent dragged off to jail or in court for not complying with federal educational rules, it likely will be me.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Mon, 2013-04-08 05:11