What would be good inclusivity training?

[marshwiggle]

The authors probably address this, but I am not sure all of these factors are independent of each other, though perhaps that can be rooted out by survey.
For instance, a survey can possibly root out how  deep and lasting someone's interest really is. Otherwise my concern is that its highly correlated with peer relationships.

That being said, there probably are some general differences in interests between men and women (percentage wise) that may be very difficult to control/manipulate due to how much they are influenced by deep-seated societal and family factors as well as anything that *might* be more innate, if there is anything truly innate. Still, so long as women report biases and uninviting environments in some sciences, explaining even some of it away with fundamental differences in interests will seem weak (as with Larry Summers).

The funny thing is, I never hear people complaining about the low numbers of men in early childhood education and nursing, and how that's obviously due to rampant discrimination. The idea that there are certain things that men don't have much interest in is completely unremarkable.

[Caracal]

The authors probably address this, but I am not sure all of these factors are independent of each other, though perhaps that can be rooted out by survey.
For instance, a survey can possibly root out how  deep and lasting someone's interest really is. Otherwise my concern is that its highly correlated with peer relationships.

That being said, there probably are some general differences in interests between men and women (percentage wise) that may be very difficult to control/manipulate due to how much they are influenced by deep-seated societal and family factors as well as anything that *might* be more innate, if there is anything truly innate. Still, so long as women report biases and uninviting environments in some sciences, explaining even some of it away with fundamental differences in interests will seem weak (as with Larry Summers).

The funny thing is, I never hear people complaining about the low numbers of men in early childhood education and nursing, and how that's obviously due to rampant discrimination. The idea that there are certain things that men don't have much interest in is completely unremarkable.

I'll complain about it if you want. Nursing and early childhood education are both professions that have been gendered female, and it was no accident that they traditionally were positions where the pay was low. Actually, the number of men in nursing has been steadily increasing. Presumably, that's because it has become a more attractive field as the demand has increased. As a result, men who previously wouldn't have considered nursing have gone into the profession and slowly that has started to change the perception that nursing is a female field, resulting in more men going to nursing school. If we started to actually pay teachers better, you'd probably see similar dynamics. I think that would be a good thing. There are men who would be good at teaching young children who don't consider it now.

These kinds of arguments about fundamental differences in the interests of men and women always seem beside the point to me. If you actually removed soft discrimination based on gender and made sure women could feel comfortable in traditionally male dominated fields and there were still more men going into those fields, then that would be fine. The problem is looking at cultures where there is obviously problematic cultures and barriers to women and concluding that the current percentages must reflect differences in interests.

[Puget]

The authors probably address this, but I am not sure all of these factors are independent of each other, though perhaps that can be rooted out by survey.
For instance, a survey can possibly root out how  deep and lasting someone's interest really is. Otherwise my concern is that its highly correlated with peer relationships.

That being said, there probably are some general differences in interests between men and women (percentage wise) that may be very difficult to control/manipulate due to how much they are influenced by deep-seated societal and family factors as well as anything that *might* be more innate, if there is anything truly innate. Still, so long as women report biases and uninviting environments in some sciences, explaining even some of it away with fundamental differences in interests will seem weak (as with Larry Summers).

The funny thing is, I never hear people complaining about the low numbers of men in early childhood education and nursing, and how that's obviously due to rampant discrimination. The idea that there are certain things that men don't have much interest in is completely unremarkable.

I'll complain about it if you want. Nursing and early childhood education are both professions that have been gendered female, and it was no accident that they traditionally were positions where the pay was low. Actually, the number of men in nursing has been steadily increasing. Presumably, that's because it has become a more attractive field as the demand has increased. As a result, men who previously wouldn't have considered nursing have gone into the profession and slowly that has started to change the perception that nursing is a female field, resulting in more men going to nursing school. If we started to actually pay teachers better, you'd probably see similar dynamics. I think that would be a good thing. There are men who would be good at teaching young children who don't consider it now.

These kinds of arguments about fundamental differences in the interests of men and women always seem beside the point to me. If you actually removed soft discrimination based on gender and made sure women could feel comfortable in traditionally male dominated fields and there were still more men going into those fields, then that would be fine. The problem is looking at cultures where there is obviously problematic cultures and barriers to women and concluding that the current percentages must reflect differences in interests.

Not only is it not true that people don't complain about this, there are concerted efforts to address it. I just recently heard a radio story about efforts to recruit male EMTs into nursing, in part by having them shadow male nurses so they can see themselves in that role. Likewise there have long been efforts to recruit more men into early childhood education, since it is good for young children to have both male and female role models. As Caracal notes, this has been hampered by the low pay. Indeed, recruiting and retaining early childhood educators of *any* gender has become increasingly challenging as entry-level workers can make much more in other jobs like working in a warehouse. This is much bigger societal problem, but outside the scope of this thread.

[marshwiggle]

The authors probably address this, but I am not sure all of these factors are independent of each other, though perhaps that can be rooted out by survey.
For instance, a survey can possibly root out how  deep and lasting someone's interest really is. Otherwise my concern is that its highly correlated with peer relationships.

That being said, there probably are some general differences in interests between men and women (percentage wise) that may be very difficult to control/manipulate due to how much they are influenced by deep-seated societal and family factors as well as anything that *might* be more innate, if there is anything truly innate. Still, so long as women report biases and uninviting environments in some sciences, explaining even some of it away with fundamental differences in interests will seem weak (as with Larry Summers).

The funny thing is, I never hear people complaining about the low numbers of men in early childhood education and nursing, and how that's obviously due to rampant discrimination. The idea that there are certain things that men don't have much interest in is completely unremarkable.

I'll complain about it if you want. Nursing and early childhood education are both professions that have been gendered female, and it was no accident that they traditionally were positions where the pay was low.

This raises the same point. If men avoid a profession, in this case because of low pay, that's considered to be "no big deal".

Actually, the number of men in nursing has been steadily increasing. Presumably, that's because it has become a more attractive field as the demand has increased. As a result, men who previously wouldn't have considered nursing have gone into the profession and slowly that has started to change the perception that nursing is a female field, resulting in more men going to nursing school. If we started to actually pay teachers better, you'd probably see similar dynamics. I think that would be a good thing. There are men who would be good at teaching young children who don't consider it now.

These kinds of arguments about fundamental differences in the interests of men and women always seem beside the point to me. If you actually removed soft discrimination based on gender and made sure women could feel comfortable in traditionally male dominated fields and there were still more men going into those fields, then that would be fine. The problem is looking at cultures where there is obviously problematic cultures and barriers to women and concluding that the current percentages must reflect differences in interests.

The problem with this is that it's non-falsifiable. How can you tell that women aren't going into a field because of "soft discrimination"? The same claim could be made by men in the past who avoided ECE and nursing; that may have been a bigger factor than pay.

Nobody seems to claim "soft discrimination" for the low numbers of women in mining, forestry, fishing, etc. The rule is pretty simple: If *people think women would want to do X, then it must be discrimination. If *people don't think women would want to do X, the disparity doesn't matter. (Even though these two things create a mathematical impossibility; if more women choose certain professions, then there will be less women in other professions, so the number of professions in which they will be equally represented could be very small.)


*I'd also point out that many of the people (specifically women) who complain about the numbers of women in STEM are themselves people who have no interest in STEM. It's a bit ridiculous for me to complain about the lack of interest in playing the basoon by some group of people when I have no interest in playing the basoon, since I accept my own lack of interest as justified.

[marshwiggle]

I just recently heard a radio story about efforts to recruit male EMTs into nursing, in part by having them shadow male nurses so they can see themselves in that role. Likewise there have long been efforts to recruit more men into early childhood education, since it is good for young children to have both male and female role models. As Caracal notes, this has been hampered by the low pay. Indeed, recruiting and retaining early childhood educators of *any* gender has become increasingly challenging as entry-level workers can make much more in other jobs like working in a warehouse. This is much bigger societal problem, but outside the scope of this thread.

I would just point out that in each of these cases, discrimination is implicitly ignored as having anything to do with the disparity, while in any case where the situation is reversed, discrimination is explicitly blamed.

[apl68]

The authors probably address this, but I am not sure all of these factors are independent of each other, though perhaps that can be rooted out by survey.
For instance, a survey can possibly root out how  deep and lasting someone's interest really is. Otherwise my concern is that its highly correlated with peer relationships.

That being said, there probably are some general differences in interests between men and women (percentage wise) that may be very difficult to control/manipulate due to how much they are influenced by deep-seated societal and family factors as well as anything that *might* be more innate, if there is anything truly innate. Still, so long as women report biases and uninviting environments in some sciences, explaining even some of it away with fundamental differences in interests will seem weak (as with Larry Summers).

The funny thing is, I never hear people complaining about the low numbers of men in early childhood education and nursing, and how that's obviously due to rampant discrimination. The idea that there are certain things that men don't have much interest in is completely unremarkable.

I'll complain about it if you want. Nursing and early childhood education are both professions that have been gendered female, and it was no accident that they traditionally were positions where the pay was low. Actually, the number of men in nursing has been steadily increasing. Presumably, that's because it has become a more attractive field as the demand has increased. As a result, men who previously wouldn't have considered nursing have gone into the profession and slowly that has started to change the perception that nursing is a female field, resulting in more men going to nursing school. If we started to actually pay teachers better, you'd probably see similar dynamics. I think that would be a good thing. There are men who would be good at teaching young children who don't consider it now.

These kinds of arguments about fundamental differences in the interests of men and women always seem beside the point to me. If you actually removed soft discrimination based on gender and made sure women could feel comfortable in traditionally male dominated fields and there were still more men going into those fields, then that would be fine. The problem is looking at cultures where there is obviously problematic cultures and barriers to women and concluding that the current percentages must reflect differences in interests.

I'm not sure there are no soft barriers to men in these fields.  I understand that men are deterred from going into early childhood education because men who want to work with children are often viewed with suspicion.  I've known male children's services librarians who had to deal with this problem.  Which probably goes some way toward explaining why whenever I go to a state children's and youth services workshop I'm typically one of only five or six guys there out of circa 200 attendees (And I'm there as a library director, not a children's and youth services worker).  That said, men are far more welcome in the library profession (outside of children's services, at least) than women report being in quite a few traditionally male occupations even now.  A male librarian will occasionally run into members of the public who think his choice of occupation is kind of odd, but it's all but unheard of to have female colleagues who question whether he really belongs there.  Women in some fields still seem to run into a good deal of that.

[apl68]

Well, yes, what has changed in the past decades is that people are no longer explicit about saying 'Black people don't belong in my field' or 'Oh, I have no objection to black people in my field.' And yet, black people keep feeling unwelcome. In Absolutive's school, an AP calc teacher once told a black student, the instant the student walked into the class, 'Are you sure you're in the right place?' Didn't ask the student's name, didn't check the register, simply assumed that a black student didn't belong in the AP calc classroom.

You don't need to explicitly talk about the welcomeness or unwelcomeness of different groups to make the feel welcome or unwelcome. One way you can make them feel unwelcome is by telling them that they, as individual people, are unwelcome in a setting where they don't look like every other individual person. And one way to make them feel welcome is by making it clear that the setting does include individual people who do look like them.

And if getting people to stop pulling stuff like this is what inclusivity training is all about, then it's all well and good.  There's just no excuse for black, female, etc. students to keep having to deal with slights like this, intentional or otherwise.  The problem is, inclusivity training seems to have gained a bad reputation, not always unjustified, for incorporating questionable content which assumes that certain groups are composed of oppressors and others are composed of victims.  That sort of thing divides people--it doesn't make things more "inclusive."  I think that what this thread was originally supposed to be about was how to tell what content is constructive for inclusivity training, and what tends to defeat the purpose of it.

[ciao_yall]

The authors probably address this, but I am not sure all of these factors are independent of each other, though perhaps that can be rooted out by survey.
For instance, a survey can possibly root out how  deep and lasting someone's interest really is. Otherwise my concern is that its highly correlated with peer relationships.

That being said, there probably are some general differences in interests between men and women (percentage wise) that may be very difficult to control/manipulate due to how much they are influenced by deep-seated societal and family factors as well as anything that *might* be more innate, if there is anything truly innate. Still, so long as women report biases and uninviting environments in some sciences, explaining even some of it away with fundamental differences in interests will seem weak (as with Larry Summers).

The funny thing is, I never hear people complaining about the low numbers of men in early childhood education and nursing, and how that's obviously due to rampant discrimination. The idea that there are certain things that men don't have much interest in is completely unremarkable.

I'll complain about it if you want. Nursing and early childhood education are both professions that have been gendered female, and it was no accident that they traditionally were positions where the pay was low.

This raises the same point. If men avoid a profession, in this case because of low pay, that's considered to be "no big deal".

"No big deal..." Until nurses and preschool/elementary teachers are needed and they can't be found. Why? Because people discover that the equivalent educational effort and expense can yield far better economic security.

And, the only way to attract more people to a field is to promise better pay and job security. Which means attracting enough for men to decide they prefer these fields to construction and plumbing. And then (oh noes) paying women more to do these jobs because, you know, discrimination is illegal.

[marshwiggle]

I think that what this thread was originally supposed to be about was how to tell what content is constructive for inclusivity training, and what tends to defeat the purpose of it.

This made me think of a question. Does anyone know of research regarding the relative strengths of various affinities? For instance, are people more likely to associate with people based on ethnicity or on nationality? Sex or sexual orientation? And so on.

The point is that "inclusivity" and "diversity" assume a certain hierarchy of affinity will dominate many social settings. But if the operational hierarchy is different, then much of the effort could be useless or even *counterproductive.
 

*A new employee who went to the "wrong" high school could be more out of place with other members of the same ethnic group than another employee of a different ethnic group who went to the "right" high school; i.e. the one they went to. Talking about "inclusion" in ethnic terms would fail to address the bigger issue in this case of school background.

[marshwiggle]

And, the only way to attract more people to a field is to promise better pay and job security. Which means attracting enough for men to decide they prefer these fields to construction and plumbing. And then (oh noes) paying women more to do these jobs because, you know, discrimination is illegal.

Great. So once men realize that they get more money and job security, with less exposure to the elements and other unpleasant factors, by working in ECE instead of plumbing and construction, how do we recruit plumbers and construction workers? Why would women want to go into those trades in that case?

[Caracal]

I think that what this thread was originally supposed to be about was how to tell what content is constructive for inclusivity training, and what tends to defeat the purpose of it.

This made me think of a question. Does anyone know of research regarding the relative strengths of various affinities? For instance, are people more likely to associate with people based on ethnicity or on nationality? Sex or sexual orientation? And so on.

I can't really see how you could separate any of those things out from context-and if you could you'd end up with fundamentally misleading results. People associate with people who they work with, live near, have things in common with etc. There's a higher rate of interracial marriage in the armed forces than almost anywhere else. That isn't because people in the military are more inclined to associate with people of different races-its because people are just thrown together.

[marshwiggle]

I think that what this thread was originally supposed to be about was how to tell what content is constructive for inclusivity training, and what tends to defeat the purpose of it.

This made me think of a question. Does anyone know of research regarding the relative strengths of various affinities? For instance, are people more likely to associate with people based on ethnicity or on nationality? Sex or sexual orientation? And so on.

I can't really see how you could separate any of those things out from context-and if you could you'd end up with fundamentally misleading results. People associate with people who they work with, live near, have things in common with etc. There's a higher rate of interracial marriage in the armed forces than almost anywhere else. That isn't because people in the military are more inclined to associate with people of different races-its because people are just thrown together.

But the whole basis for diversity and inclusion training is that divisions along lines of race, gender, etc. are fundamental and extremely resistant to change. To say that throwing people together is the main thing required for them to get along is essentially the message of a few decades ago.

[ciao_yall]

And, the only way to attract more people to a field is to promise better pay and job security. Which means attracting enough for men to decide they prefer these fields to construction and plumbing. And then (oh noes) paying women more to do these jobs because, you know, discrimination is illegal.

Great. So once men realize that they get more money and job security, with less exposure to the elements and other unpleasant factors, by working in ECE instead of plumbing and construction, how do we recruit plumbers and construction workers? Why would women want to go into those trades in that case?

People who prefer building and welding and don't mind being outside or physical labor will be attracted to construction.

People who don't mind bodily fluids and enjoy caring for and nurturing others will be attracted to nursing and childcare.

[marshwiggle]

And, the only way to attract more people to a field is to promise better pay and job security. Which means attracting enough for men to decide they prefer these fields to construction and plumbing. And then (oh noes) paying women more to do these jobs because, you know, discrimination is illegal.

Great. So once men realize that they get more money and job security, with less exposure to the elements and other unpleasant factors, by working in ECE instead of plumbing and construction, how do we recruit plumbers and construction workers? Why would women want to go into those trades in that case?

People who prefer building and welding and don't mind being outside or physical labor will be attracted to construction.

People who don't mind bodily fluids and enjoy caring for and nurturing others will be attracted to nursing and childcare.

You need to pick one:
Either
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of what the job entails, and money is secondary,
OR
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of money , and what the job entails is secondary.

In the first case, changing the pay of professions may not greatly change historical patterns. In the second case, changing the pay of professions could make certain necessary occupations unable to recruit.

ETA: Some data

Countries with greater gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), a new study has found. Policymakers could use the findings to reconsider initiatives to increase women's participation in STEM, say the researchers.

Dubbed the 'gender equality paradox', the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway or Sweden.

The researchers, from Leeds Beckett University in the UK and the University of Missouri in the USA, believe this might be because countries with less gender equality often have little welfare support, making the choice of a relatively highly-paid STEM career more attractive.

[dismalist]

You need to pick one:
Either
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of what the job entails, and money is secondary,
OR
People choose jobs primarily on the basis of money , and what the job entails is secondary.

It is more fruitful, and simpler, to think that each individual has his or her own tradeoff between money and other job characteristics, and chooses accordingly.