A lot more things are zero-sum than not, especially in the short-term, which the US revels in running on (e.g. the next annual report, the next election cycle, the next super bowl. Everyone is obsessed with the short term) - land, job vacancies, potential dating mates, etc.
I'm not sure why this trope still hasn't died yet. I guess a whole generation made their careers during ZIRP era, so their worldview is extremely skewed.
As someone that competed in FRC for all of high school, I don't understand how an informed person could come to this conclusion unless they are trolling. STEM classes and extracurriculars are veritable boys clubs - go look up the team composites for your school's local robotics club and count the ratio yourself. It's a blowout, and while marketing STEM to young women can end up ham-fisted (as it so often is for young men), motivating girls isn't taking any opportunities away from boys.
You are either misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Boys that want to participate in STEM aren't any more impeded today than they were prior.
We have a real problem here but nobody wants to acknowledge it because the optics given the past couple decades of social progress are uncomfortable. There's nothing wrong with wanting to provide opportunities specifically for under performing young men even if it feels icky. We just need to be intelligent about it.
I agree that there is an intelligent solution here, but I don't understand why it necessitates scale-tipping because some men are less successful than others. There will always be a 75th percentile.
I have theories about the underlying issues though and I suspect you do too. It's less of an opportunity issue and more of a culture one. Women are being taught they need to fight and men are being taught they need to just exist. So they're doing just that.
You're making my point for me. This is the line that was said about girls 30 years ago. They were not impeded from entering STEM either, but they also weren't encouraged like the boys were at the time. Boys are no longer encouraged or nurtured to do anything by our public schools (STEM or otherwise). The lucky ones have examples in their lives they can model after.
As for the "fate" you're fearmongering about for women, what is that to you? I'm not worried about men staying home to raise children. Hurray for anyone that can do that in this economy. I'm worried about men rotting away on drugs, committing crime, and ending up dead or in prison.
You acknowledge that girls need encouragement but think boys will just "figure it out." It's you who must be trolling.
Girls: You will be an astronaut stem president boss queen with less than $REPLACEMENT_RATE children! Boys: Hey how about be a girl
I wanted to learn more about computers but the staff that were savvy were much more excited about teaching the girls, they rightly figured I'd have no trouble exploring that interest. At the time it was fine if mildly frustrating, now I'd be pretty worried about such behavior.
Not three days ago I was four feet from the woman that runs my entire division at a large financial institution, who complained that there were far too many men in our SOC last time she was there. This time she was quite chuffed that we had hired two more ladies - after silently changing our hiring criteria to filter out any men.
I used to try and make my team look like a Star Trek crew. Not anymore. Competence over anything.
Missing in this discussion is what it meant to be a boy interested in STEM socially.
It's cool to be an engineer today. It pays very well, it's easy to make friends, find a mate, etc.
Those of us who grew up as nerdy kids in the 1980s dealt with the kind of bullying and social ostracism that future generations cannot even imagine.
Are boys being downplayed in favor of girls for advancement opportunities? Maybe. But you still have it MUCH MUCH better in a holistic sense than we did, to a degree you'll never know.
One of those things might be true.
You might want to get some therapy for your anger issues.