Top 15 Steve Stewart-Williams Quotes

[W]e should strive to eliminate bias and barriers of every kind... What we would argue, though, is that even if this were achieved, STEM gender gaps would be unlikely to disappear given persistent sex differences in interests and other STEM-relevant traits – differences plausibly due in part to biological causes. The question, then, is: Would this necessarily be a problem? In our view, as long as unjust impediments are removed, and everyone is invited, it would not be. On the contrary, it would be unfortunate if, for all the talk of celebrating differences and diversity, we ultimately came to insist that justice requires sameness.

The evidence for bias in STEM is mixed: Although some studies find bias against women, others find none or bias in women’s favour... The mixed findings suggest that narrow-sense anti-female bias is less ubiquitous than sometimes assumed – or that different people have different biases, and these sometimes favour males but sometimes favour females.

[A]lthough we agree that caution should be exercised in discussing biological explanations, we would argue that this is a specific instance of a more general truth, namely that caution should be exercised in discussing any explanations. It is not only biological explanations that can undergird harmful practices. Environmental theories of left-handedness and same-sex sexual orientation, for instance, have been associated with cruel and unnecessary interventions designed to eradicate these innocuous traits. Environmental theories of human sex differences, if taken to extremes, could potentially produce comparable harms. For example, if we assume that sex differences in career choice are necessarily evidence of bias and barriers, and never products of the freely made choices of those best-placed to make them, we may pathologise the decisions of individuals who take a gender-typical path, and enact progressively more coercive practices to eliminate the remaining gaps. Like earlier efforts to force people into the mould of traditional gender stereotypes, such practices may mean that some people are funnelled into careers that do not align well with their interests and inclinations.

[I]t is widely accepted these days that people should be treated fairly and respectfully regardless of whether they buck the trend for their sex, and no ethical theory we’re familiar with implies that this is only the case if the trend in question is 100% environmental in origin.

Sex differences in various psychological traits – in particular, average differences in career-related interests – contribute more to STEM gender gaps than is often assumed. These differences are not due solely to learning, but have a biological component as well... Certainly, the evidence for a biological contribution is not beyond criticism. We suggest, however, that the totality of the evidence renders the Nurture-Only view considerably less plausible than the Nature-Plus-Nurture alternative. The evidence we find most compelling includes the stubbornness of the sex differences over time, even despite efforts to eradicate them; the cross-cultural consistency of the differences; the early appearance of some differences during development; evidence linking the traits in question to prenatal hormonal exposure; and in some cases, comparable differences in evolutionarily relevant nonhuman animals. Each of these findings would be more surprising if the relevant sex differences were due solely to culture than if biology were also involved. And although alternative explanations for any particular finding are always possible, the convergence of these very different lines of evidence adds up to a strong prima facie case for a non-trivial biological contribution.

Although men and women are roughly equally represented in STEM overall, in certain fields, the sex ratios are somewhat unbalanced. More women than men are found in health-related fields, for instance, whereas more men than women are found in fields such as computer science, engineering, and physics.

Based on the foregoing discussion, we suggest that the approach that would be most conducive to maximizing individual happiness and autonomy would be to strive for equality of opportunity, but then to respect men and women’s decisions regarding their own lives and careers, even if this does not result in gender parity across all fields. Approaches that focus instead on equality of outcomes – including quotas and financial inducements – may exact a toll in terms of individual happiness. To the extent that these policies override people’s preferences, they effectively place the goal of equalizing the statistical properties of groups above the happiness and autonomy of the individuals within those groups.

[T]he strong emphasis on increasing the numbers of women in male-dominated fields is arguably somewhat sexist. As Susan Pinker argues, it tacitly assumes that women do not know what they want, or that they want the wrong things and thus that wiser third-parties need to “fix” their existing preferences. It also tacitly assumes that the areas where men dominate are superior.

A growing body of work suggests that, in nations with greater wealth and higher levels of gender equality, sex differences are often larger than they are in less wealthy, less equal nations... [R]ather than being products of a sexist or oppressive society, these differences may be indicators of the opposite: a comparatively free and fair one. If so, this casts society’s efforts to minimize the sex differences in an entirely new light. Rather than furthering gender equality, such efforts may involve attacking a positive symptom of gender equality. By mistaking the fruits of our freedom for evidence of oppression, we may institute policies that, at best, burn up time and resources in a futile effort to cure a “disease” that isn’t actually a disease, and at worst actively limit people’s freedom to pursue their own interests and ambitions on a fair and level playing field.

Why should we put a statistical, collective goal – i.e., more equal sex ratios in STEM – above the happiness and autonomy of the flesh-and-blood individuals who constitute those collectives? Why should policy makers’ preference for gender parity take precedence over individual men and women’s preferences regarding their own careers and lives?

[P]olicies that artificially engineer gender parity – financial incentives and quotas, for instance – could potentially lower aggregate happiness. To the extent that these policies work, they necessarily mean that some people will be funnelled into occupations that are less in line with their tastes and talents.

Most women do not want a career in STEM and nor do most men. Why should the small fraction of women who do want such a career be the same size as the small fraction of men? To put it another way, as long as everyone has the opportunity to pursue a STEM career, and as long as the selection process is fair, why would it be important to get as many women as men into jobs that fewer women want?

[I]t is not only men who may be harmed by preferences and quotas. In a number of ways, women could be harmed as well. To begin with, such policies could cast a shadow of doubt over women’s genuine accomplishments.

Why should any individual woman today be advantaged over any individual man just because other men were advantaged over other women in the past? Reversing historical injustices does not erase them; it merely adds to the total number of injustices in the world. The question we face today, therefore, is this: Is the appropriate response to injustice to try to eliminate it, or to turn it on its head?

[O]ne of the main moral foundations of the women’s liberation movement – and indeed of all liberation movements – is the idea that individuals should be treated fairly and equally, and that unjust barriers should be removed. A policy that advantages members of one demographic group over those of another necessarily abandons those principles. In doing so, it risks leaving the women’s movement without one of its main moral foundations.