Females more likely than males to be elected in US scientific societies

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1073&#x2F;pnas.1418878112" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1073&#x2F;pnas.1418878112</a><p>Even where I work, I&#x27;m under a lot of pressure to hire more women engineers to the point we bend rules and relax standards.<p>There is a ton of societal and economic pressure with slogans like &quot;the future is female&quot;. I&#x27;m a mother and I do not think this is a good thing. I have a son and I caught him and friends gravitating to Andrew Tate like content. He&#x27;s so young, and he already feels that society is hostile against him.

As a male engineer, whose grandmother got PhD in Physics around 1960 when overall PhDs were more strict than today, and especially for women, I think it is both bad when women are being held back “because they should stay at home and raise a family”, and when we want to right a historic wrong by having double standards so we could hire more women in STEM roles. We need meritocracy.

We are living in the matriarchy now, and it will only increase in the future.<p>Women now get 60% of all degrees, and I&#x27;ve read somewhere that projections are that they will get 70-75% in the next 10-15 years.<p>The only reason men are still most of the Fortune 500 CEOs, president of the USA, and other positions of power is because of legacy reasons - men who graduated 30 or 40 years ago and were in the workforce for a long time.<p>With fewer men graduating from university, now and even more in the future, it&#x27;s logical that women will take over all forms of power in society in the medium-term future - starting now but snowballing faster and faster until in 25 years, it will be all females ruling most of society. Sure there still will be powerful men, but I&#x27;m talking about society as a whole.<p>Title IX started in 1972 to make an equal academic playing field for women. At that time, in 1972, the diparity between men and women was men had 12% more of university graduates. Now women are 20% more and rising.<p>We <i>are</i> living in the matriarchy but it&#x27;s like that &quot;he who must not be named&quot; kind of thing. If you say that we live in a matriarchy, it is instant banishment from the kingdom in the form of instantly being labeled as a misogynist or incel, just for saying we live in the matriarchy.

In physics at least, it&#x27;s been my experience that even though the percentage of women physics professors is low, almost every one is an above-average researcher. They are certainly harder working on average. Meanwhile, there will be several men in the department who have just coasted. This isn&#x27;t among new profs, but among those who have been around long enough that they definitely experienced gender discrimination in hiring. I don&#x27;t think this is a biological thing, just an interesting side effect of strong gender discrimination, where the women who make it in have to be exceptional to do so.

I’m just very grateful I was hired at my current position back in the early 2010s. Before things became… different.<p>Let’s just say I don’t see many white men in the interview loop these days.

This isn’t particularly surprising to me. I’m a scientist, and in my field, women have outnumbered men in my undergraduate and graduate programs, and also in every lab I’ve worked in as a professional.<p>The hard sciences haven’t had the gender imbalance currently seen in engineering and tech jobs for decades now.

I dont understand, I am constantly told that Stem is patriarchal and full of white supremacist&#x27;s. Its almost as if we have been lied to.

Unless the majority of academy is female, I would guess that you probably have a lower number of women running and a lot of pressure to get more women into these positions. This is what happens when you favor equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.

How is this an &quot;accomplishment for gender equity.&quot; Isn&#x27;t this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn&#x27;t perceive how this is still, logically speaking, &quot;inequity&quot; speaks to the bias at play in this area.<p>But then again is true equity even possible? Is it a logical possibility given the biological differences between men and women? Perhaps it&#x27;s a scientific fact that women are superior to men in science that&#x27;s why we see this difference.<p>There is also more women attending universities then men. This also speaks to the possibility of greater intellectual superiority in women than in men.<p>What about the fact that virtually all of science, technology and modern infrastructure was created by men? It is clear from any layman that the frameworks and foundation of advanced civilization were built (with some exceptions) exclusively by men. This of course does not obviously speak to any intellectual differences between men or women but speaks more to oppression. Before modern movements toward gender equality, men regularly oppressed women making it impossible for women to display their superior intellect.<p>But is this the real narrative? Or is equality actually real? This is a controversial opinion but I think men are in fact much stupider then women and equality is a made up fantasy.<p>This is the real question everyone is tip-toeing around. At the end of the day how are men and women different in raw terms of absolute performance and intelligence? And are the elections a reflection of raw performance OR not?

The headline has lost some nuance:<p>&gt; The paper finds that since 2019, female researchers have comprised around 40% of new members in both prestigious academies1. Historically, across disciplines in each academy, there have been substantially fewer female researchers than male ones. Before the 1980s, female members comprised less than 10% of total academy membership across all scientific fields.<p>So, if you choose a random person getting admitted, they&#x27;ll probably be a man.<p>They claim that if you equalise for &quot;achievement&quot; then woman are overrepresented. Which you can interpret as &quot;woman are inferior, even if we give them an advantage they&#x27;re still not good enough&quot; or &quot;woman are broadly equal to men, but are held back by the predominance of men in science (and society) and consequent sexism&quot;