You obviously didn't read the first article, as that EXACT point is addressed and refuted by the authors of the article and study itself.From what I understand the sexism is more rampant in the academic side of things, meaning that the women who actually make it through that are self-selected to be some serious badasses compared to the men.
I actually did read the article. They are talking about hiring of professors. There is a difference between the hiring of a professor and the academic experience. This article does not talk about the academic experience at all, except in the conclusion. There are many studies that imply that the academic experience for women in STEM is pretty brutal. This may be changing now, but the professors currently being hired came up during the more classical, and highly sexist STEM faculties. Which means they are badasses, which would imply they would be stronger candidates.You obviously didn't read the first article, as that EXACT point is addressed and refuted by the authors of the article and study itself.
Try again, this time reading first please.
What I have read is that the reason there are less women in STEM is because of constant exposure to male faculty and patriarchal societal norms that constantly, if subtly, push women away from the fields. This means that a woman who still ends up in STEM is someone who swam upstream, which means they are an inherently stronger candidate. Which means I would hire them.[DOUBLEPOST=1429207631,1429207488][/DOUBLEPOST]From your second paper (which I didn't read, but now did)The low numbers of women in math-based fields of science do not result from sexist hiring, but rather from women's lower rates of choosing to enter math-based fields in the first place, due to sex differences in preferred careers and perhaps to lack of female role models and mentors.
Note that they are making the exact same point here.We hope that the discovery of an overall 2 to 1 preference for hiring women over otherwise identical men will help counter self-handicapping and opting out by talented women at the point of entry to the STEM professoriate, and suggest that female underrepresentation can be addressed in part by increasing the number of women applying for tenure-track positions
I read both links, but this is really the problem, moreso than hiring. You can't hire (hypothetically or genuinely) women that aren't there. I've heard things are changing, albeit slowly, but in my formative years, there wasn't a lot of encouragement or support for girls to take an interest in these fields. Hell, I took some classes out of curiosity/interest, and in some cases I was given the cold shoulder by the teacher.What I have read is that the reason there are less women in STEM is because of constant exposure to male faculty and patriarchal societal norms that constantly, if subtly, push women away from the fields.