PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 29, 2018, 07:42:32 PM
-
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/11/two-more-women-accuse-neil-degrasse-tyson-of-sexual-misconduct/
Ewww.
-
Who is he?
Does anyone really care that he got drunk and copped a feel?
Are these women that hard up for attention that they have to announce their indiscretions to get someone to notice them?
If it happened nine years ago an involved nothing more than a feel, other than ugly women who can’t get a man, who cares?
-
He is the TV personality with a degree in astrophysics whom we are supposed to trust about all things science ... physics, climate change, blah blah.
So when “Believe All Women” clashes with “Black Icon Lives Matter,” it amuses me.
-
Damn. That could have easily been me 30 years ago. Or almost any heterosexual male. If this shit keeps up, the species is certainly doomed.
She certainly doesn't look offended in the pictures. She looks grateful that someone is admiring her artwork. Why else would she have a tattoo like that?
-
Damn. That could have easily been me 30 years ago. Or almost any heterosexual male. If this shit keeps up, the species is certainly doomed.
She certainly doesn't look offended in the pictures. She looks grateful that someone is admiring her artwork. Why else would she have a tattoo like that?
Ha, if you have Netflix, watch “Cheers” for a while. With your wife. 🙂 Watch her go ballistic.
-
Really unfortunate. The thing with the dress was off color but I doubt would rise to the level of actionable. Having a subordinate quit due to reported sexual issues is clearly harassment, and will get you deep sixed from most institutions.
I always thought my occupation was relatively free from this sort of thing. The really sad thing is not only was I mistaken, but clearly I was mistaken to large extent. There are clear data showing gender bias in hiring, salaries, promotion and allocation of lab space and resources across numerous institutions and disciplines.
-
Really unfortunate. The thing with the dress was off color but I doubt would rise to the level of actionable. Having a subordinate quit due to reported sexual issues is clearly harassment, and will get you deep sixed from most institutions.
I always thought my occupation was relatively free from this sort of thing. The really sad thing is not only was I mistaken, but clearly I was mistaken to large extent. There are clear data showing gender bias in hiring, salaries, promotion and allocation of lab space and resources across numerous institutions and disciplines.
What is your opinion about the cause? I used to think if there was gender bias it was because men were preferred because it was assumed they would not get pregnant and quit. But do you think now it is because men fear women will bring harassment suits? Are men just avoiding working with women? Do you think it has changed in recent years?
In my occupation (engineering) I experienced no bias whatsoever, if anything it may have been biased toward hiring women because we were such a rarity. But that was back in the 80s. I don't know what it's like today.
-
Who is he?
Does anyone really care that he got drunk and copped a feel?
Around #15 - 25 smartest guys on the planet.
someone did. What makes me wonder is why no one is accusing guys like Clooney, or some other hulky man's man of the same thing. I'm dead-dog SURE that the good looking guys have done the same thing, but for some reason - it's not made the headlines.
-
But do you think now it is because men fear women will bring harassment suits? Are men just avoiding working with women? Do you think it has changed in recent years?
In my occupation (engineering) I experienced no bias whatsoever, if anything it may have been biased toward hiring women because we were such a rarity. But that was back in the 80s. I don't know what it's like today.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I avoid women actively. Never, ever be alone with one at work. Lucky for me in my field, we have almost no women, however I do come across them rarely as vendors or customers. Avoid like the plague.
-
What is your opinion about the cause? I used to think if there was gender bias it was because men were preferred because it was assumed they would not get pregnant and quit. But do you think now it is because men fear women will bring harassment suits? Are men just avoiding working with women? Do you think it has changed in recent years?
I think there exist unconscious bias in the men of my profession. I doubt very many have a conscious bias in our work climate, but I believe and unconscious bias could produce the results seen. We all thought we were acting in an egalitarian fashion.
-
I think there exist unconscious bias in the men of my profession. I doubt very many have a conscious bias in our work climate, but I believe and unconscious bias could produce the results seen. We all thought we were acting in an egalitarian fashion.
I agree unconscious bias is probably a huge factor and probably in many more ways than we imagine. I think I've read where height matters, looks matter, weight matters, all these things are measured in a hiring decision, not just the obvious ones like race and gender.
There's been publicity about weight discrimination. One of my recent commercial flights had a very obese flight attendant. It was obviously a change of rules from back when you had to be cover girl pretty to get that job.
I think taller people get hired more than shorter people, but unless you control for other factors like intelligence (maybe taller people are smarter) then you can't be sure height is the reason, but I think there is unconscious bias there which right there gives males an advantage.
-
Hmmm. How would unconscious bias account for more men than women in pilot ranks or, say, ham radio? Or more women than men having rheumatoid arthritis? Sometimes causal factors have nothing to do with the actions of men.
-
Hmmm. How would unconscious bias account for more men than women in pilot ranks or, say, ham radio? Or more women than men having rheumatoid arthritis? Sometimes causal factors have nothing to do with the actions of men.
According to the mental midgets at the women's rally, having to deal with their period is all the fault of men.
You can't assign logic, reason, or intelligence to a species that is convinced that it is a nefarious plot that they were born with a vagina and can't get a hot guy.
Their minds are twisted around by the lies they drape themselves in to avoid looking in the mirror and seeing the truth.
-
Hmmm. How would unconscious bias account for more men than women in pilot ranks or, say, ham radio? Or more women than men having rheumatoid arthritis? Sometimes causal factors have nothing to do with the actions of men.
The world is a mystical, marvelous place with much about it yet to be revealed and explained. Perhaps bias only seems to be bias because we don’t see the larger picture. Perhaps what we call bias is only a natural fitting-in of logical actions and states of being.
One thing I’m pretty sure of is that we muck it all up when we try to make life “fair.”
-
Really unfortunate. The thing with the dress was off color but I doubt would rise to the level of actionable. Having a subordinate quit due to reported sexual issues is clearly harassment, and will get you deep sixed from most institutions.
I always thought my occupation was relatively free from this sort of thing. The really sad thing is not only was I mistaken, but clearly I was mistaken to large extent. There are clear data showing gender bias in hiring, salaries, promotion and allocation of lab space and resources across numerous institutions and disciplines.
Although I never experienced it personally (quite the opposite actually), I've known that sexual harassment exists in my profession for a long time. Too many stories of blatant harassment in the hiring process, even of tenure track professors. And in astrophysics, Tyson is hardly the first. Geoff Marcy was a sort of hero of mine for many years because of the way he resurrected his career in midlife by changing directions - he became quite well known as a pioneer in the field of exoplanet discovery and characterization. Then came the sexual misbehavior charges, and eventually he was forced to resign from the faculty at Berkeley and lost his prestigious status as PI of Breakthrough Listen. I'm still not totally sure to what extent he was railroaded, and he still has many supporters, but it's clear that he had at the very least a problem with impulse control.
Tyson's case is another I'm really not sure about. He's being accused of much more than copping a feel - including rape. Always innocent until proven guilty though.
-
What is your opinion about the cause? I used to think if there was gender bias it was because men were preferred because it was assumed they would not get pregnant and quit. But do you think now it is because men fear women will bring harassment suits? Are men just avoiding working with women? Do you think it has changed in recent years?
In my occupation (engineering) I experienced no bias whatsoever, if anything it may have been biased toward hiring women because we were such a rarity. But that was back in the 80s. I don't know what it's like today.
I thought today's Dilbert was appropriate for this discussion:
https://dilbert.com/email.opened/?eid=eyJFbWFpbElEIjozMTkyOTY1LCJFdmVudElEIjoiOCJ9
-
Women have made huge gains in my field, they comprise half my students, a majority of medical studets, and have taken over Veterinary practice, which used to be an old boys club. They don’t seem to have made similar gains in the mathematics, physics, engineering and yes aviation. I suspect there are still societal biases at play
Last time Mrs Steingar was hospitalized att the doctors were women and all the nurses men. No foolin’.
-
Which of course proves that men are holding women back and forcing them to remain pregnant and in the kitchen.
-
Which of course proves that men are holding women back and forcing them to remain pregnant and in the kitchen.
Women comprise half the population. They do not comprise half the CEO's, millionaires, billionaires, or governing officials. I see only 2 possibilities for this. 1) Women lack some quality needed for them to succeed in these scenarios or 2) something external is holding them back from succeeding in these scenarios.
-
Women comprise half the population. They do not comprise half the CEO's, millionaires, billionaires, or governing officials. I see only 2 possibilities for this. 1) Women lack some quality needed for them to succeed in these scenarios or 2) something external is holding them back from succeeding in these scenarios.
Or 3) They have no fucking interest in that kind of job or life.
Just as people in general differ, so do men and women differ. The left’s inability to see any scenario except “we have to have fucking equality and distribution among everyone and every job and every income” is stupid on steroids.
Such a world is an interesting thought but history has shown it is entirely unreasonable, unworkable, and disastrous when attempts to implement it are initiated and carried out.
The left thinks everyone needs handlers. The right thinks everyone should enjoy the freedom to choose the limits, or not, of their own goals and dreams.
-
Or 3) They have no fucking interest in that kind of job or life.
But the real question is why don't they have fucking interest in that kind of job or life? I bet lots of them would be really good at it, many better than the men doing those jobs in the first place.
-
But the real question is why don't they have fucking interest in that kind of job or life? I bet lots of them would be really good at it, many better than the men doing those jobs in the first place.
Maybe many “don’t have fucking interest in that kind of job” because the task of reproduction and subsequent child rearing usually is at least an 18-year commitment that disproportionately falls on women, whereas some men might incur an entire 18 minutes of work towards that end.
You literally cannot have it all.
-
But the real question is why don't they have fucking interest in that kind of job or life? I bet lots of them would be really good at it, many better than the men doing those jobs in the first place.
Why is that a question at all? Who cares? I’ve been on both sides ... worked as an executive secretary for a nuclear utility, marketing assistant for a port district, and tech editor at Hanford Nuclear Site here in southeast Washington state. And then stayed home raising kids, by choice.
My empirical observation and experience in the nuclear industry and economic development field is that women could acquire and do whatever job they wanted, if they were good at it, from file clerk to engineer to Managing Director. I worked with a female airport manager, a delightful gal who is still a dear friend, and loves to fly. We now see women holding the majority of college enrollments.
Back the fuck off, leftists. We don’t need handlers. We don’t need the hypocrisy and lies that flooded the internet after the 2016 election to the tune of HRC’s pathetic refrain, “I guess a woman can be anything she wants, just not President.” Then the endless accusations that women voted like their husbands told them to. Dimmies live in a imaginary world where their own unworkable and bizarre imaginary world of infinite fairness must be the template for all of us.
Here’s a thought. If Melinda Gates had been the 2016 Dem candidate, I’d have voted for her. I bet she’d have won. She is a smart, honorable woman of faith and integrity and compassion.
Note to libs who don’t understand any of the above: Go. Fuck. Yourselves. And get out of the way of women, minorities, and all legal Americans. We don’t need you to do anything EXCEPT stop impeding the first American President in living memory who can create a truly rich field of play for all Americans.
-
democrats (communists) cant afford an America where people are treated fairly.
That would rob them the only crutch they have, which is pitting people against one another and pretending to take the side of whoever's vote is up for sale..
-
But the real question is why don't they have fucking interest in that kind of job or life? I bet lots of them would be really good at it, many better than the men doing those jobs in the first place.
Just because liberals THINK women should want to be exactly like men and do and have the things men do, that doesn't make it so.
Until men start having and nursing babies, there will be different career tracks and different interests. Why do libs think that is bad?
-
Everything not intersectionalized is bad. Race, gender, and sexual preference are more important than competence.
They don’t fucking get that every attempt to create “fairness” for some creates negative bias toward and unfairness for others.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/nsf-spent-62-5-million-intersectionality-stem-current-director/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=a7d264c96c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_03_02_14_COPY_129&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-a7d264c96c-45996637
-
Why is that a question at all? Who cares? I’ve been on both sides ... worked as an executive secretary for a nuclear utility, marketing assistant for a port district, and tech editor at Hanford Nuclear Site here in southeast Washington state. And then stayed home raising kids, by choice.
My empirical observation and experience in the nuclear industry and economic development field is that women could acquire and do whatever job they wanted, if they were good at it, from file clerk to engineer to Managing Director. I worked with a female airport manager, a delightful gal who is still a dear friend, and loves to fly. We now see women holding the majority of college enrollments.
Back the fuck off, leftists. We don’t need handlers. We don’t need the hypocrisy and lies that flooded the internet after the 2016 election to the tune of HRC’s pathetic refrain, “I guess a woman can be anything she wants, just not President.” Then the endless accusations that women voted like their husbands told them to. Dimmies live in a imaginary world where their own unworkable and bizarre imaginary world of infinite fairness must be the template for all of us.
Here’s a thought. If Melinda Gates had been the 2016 Dem candidate, I’d have voted for her. I bet she’d have won. She is a smart, honorable woman of faith and integrity and compassion.
Note to libs who don’t understand any of the above: Go. Fuck. Yourselves. And get out of the way of women, minorities, and all legal Americans. We don’t need you to do anything EXCEPT stop impeding the first American President in living memory who can create a truly rich field of play for all Americans.
I really like the way you think. Well said.
-
Or 3) They have no fucking interest in that kind of job or life.
Just as people in general differ, so do men and women differ. The left’s inability to see any scenario except “we have to have fucking equality and distribution among everyone and every job and every income” is stupid on steroids.
Such a world is an interesting thought but history has shown it is entirely unreasonable, unworkable, and disastrous when attempts to implement it are initiated and carried out.
The left thinks everyone needs handlers. The right thinks everyone should enjoy the freedom to choose the limits, or not, of their own goals and dreams.
That, exactly.
My wife would have easily been a high level executive by now. She has turned down the promotion at least half a dozen times in the last ten years.
She (with my input and blessing) made the decision that having a life outside work, and being directly involved with the raising of our child was more important. She also despises and refuses to join any gender based organizations (she is an engineering).
If anything she has had more opportunities because she is a female engineer. She is also very good at her job.
-Dan
-
She also despises and refuses to join any gender based organizations
Yes! Those things and their ilk are energy-sucking black holes. I went back to college later in life and lived on campus. There was an organization for older students called “Second Wind.” I instinctively recoiled from that thing. I attended none of their meetings and only used the group to access interesting events I wanted to attend.
Who wants to hang around a group of people who share nothing but being “of a certain age” or a certain gender? Look at how the LGBT group is infighting and tossing people out for not hewing to the narrow line of acceptable political opinions.
Ick, and no thanks.
-
But the real question is why don't they have fucking interest in that kind of job or life? I bet lots of them would be really good at it, many better than the men doing those jobs in the first place.
Coincidentally, I was listening to this recently and it addresses that question. It's long but worth it, but if you want to go straight to the applicable stuff:
7:00 The studies of gender differences in Scandinavia where they have gender equal policies
"The more egalitarian the society, the more different men and women become."
10:00 "There's only two reasons men and women differ: One is cultural and the other is biological...
....reasons for different participation rates in different occupations that aren't a consequence of socialization."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iudkPi4_sY
-
One of my ex girlfriends joined a Lesbian group at her work after we broke up. So basically, yes I turn them to that, but don't turn them back. Gender bias.
-
But the real question is why don't they have fucking interest in that kind of job or life? I bet lots of them would be really good at it, many better than the men doing those jobs in the first place.
Because (and I promise you that I typed very slowly and tried to use very simply words) people are all different.
Different people often WANT DIFFERENT THINGS.
Sometimes it is very hard for liberals to understand that not everyone needs to be in lockstep to be fulfilled. That is a need that is reserved for liberals, not everyone.
What fucking business of yours is it that women choose their own pathway instead of the preferred politically correct one, imposed by selfish people for selfing reasons?
-
Because (and I promise you that I typed very slowly and tried to use very simply words) people are all different.
Different people often WANT DIFFERENT THINGS.
Sometimes it is very hard for liberals to understand that not everyone needs to be in lockstep to be fulfilled. That is a need that is reserved for liberals, not everyone.
What fucking business of yours is it that women choose their own pathway instead of the preferred politically correct one, imposed by selfish people for selfing reasons?
He asked a perfectly valid and reasonable question that has jack shit to do with political views. The cause, whether due to nature or nurture or some mix, is a valid topic of intellectual and scientific interest. That you have no interest in pursuing the subject is clear. The world is going to disregard your lack of interest.
-
He asked a perfectly valid and reasonable question that has jack shit to do with political views. The cause, whether due to nature or nurture or some mix, is a valid topic of intellectual and scientific interest. That you have no interest in pursuing the subject is clear. The world is going to disregard your lack of interest.
What seems to be of such high interest to liberals is why women... any women... would dare to vote for the candidate of their choice, not support abortion, think for themselves without the democrat (communist) party to tell them what they think and feel, and live their own lives.
If you doubt that you either support lockstep conformity, or you haven’t followed the mantra babbled by the communists (democrats) since the first weds in November 2016, and reprised with a vengeance following the first November 2018.
-
He asked a perfectly valid and reasonable question that has jack shit to do with political views. The cause, whether due to nature or nurture or some mix, is a valid topic of intellectual and scientific interest. That you have no interest in pursuing the subject is clear. The world is going to disregard your lack of interest.
I don't think it is a political point that women are just not as interested in STEM, or that they are not generally as interested in the power positions of industry. That doesn't mean they can't be every bit as good as men, and there are always exceptions.
But attempting to encourage (force) women to be more like men reminds me of attempts to make homosexuals be more like heterosexuals. Just because society expects it doesn't make it "normal". Another analogy I have used it that it is like making a fat person enjoy a small salad for lunch. When my sisters and brothers and I were kids, it was evident they would rather play house and pretend to be a princess. The boys wanted to 'play war" baseball and be the victor.
Liberals (which I am not accusing you of being one), are all about celebrating differences. So why do Steingar and other libs think women should be like men and like the same things men like?
I thoroughly support the idea that women should be ALLOWED to pursue any career they desire, but the liberal public pressure is to get them to put their kids in child care and get a power job in the STEM world. WHY? As Steingar has said, women have virtually taken over several formerly "male" dominated fields. The veterinary profession is one of them. The vast majority of veterinary students, and younger veterinarians are female. But every poll has shown that women do not have the aspirations of becoming practice owners where most of the few young men veterinarians do have that goal. Women express more interest in part time work so that the can focus on and enjoy their whole lives better. If that were just cultural and "nurture inspired" then it would pervade more professions. But women are being extremely successful in professions they desire. They can do it and they are allowed to do it. The few women engineers I know often get preferential treatment in hiring and promotions, but all the press ever talks about is sexual assault. I'm not minimizing sexual assault, but I believe the press over blows it.
-
^^^^^Spot on Little Joe.
-
I guess my thinking is if women may not be succeeding in some fields it is far more likely to be a matter of socialization than biology. Saying that all women think the same way and want the same things is insipidly stupid.
This is hugely important to us. The pilot population has been decreasing for decades. If we're to stem this tide some out of the box thinking may be required. Half the population is 6% of pilots, despite the fact that many have the wherewithal and I bet would make better pilots than lots of the men. There isn't some biological impressive keeping women out of the cockpit, its how they're treated by society.
There is no biological reason that women can't do math and physics. There is nothing about having two X chromosomes, or having the bloodstream diffused with estrogen (fun fact, estrogen and testosterone differ by exactly one methyl group). It is something about how they're treated by their fellow humans, and if we can figure out what that is we might have a big new group of potential pilots.
-
A better question would be why are fewer people becoming pilots? Let’s face it, commercial pilot jobs can be gruelingly stressful. Maybe take a look at making the job requirements more humane, if possible?
Leave gender out of it.
Focusing on men or women separately to try and attract them to a certain career is quaint and seemingly progressive, but why not, for example, address all potential pilots together? We have to live and work and have our being in the world together.
An Asian friend of mine asked me to help write promotional material to try and attract more women to her profession. It’s a vague, government one, but I believe it’s engineering management. I refused, saying it was discriminatory to men to focus on attracting women. I told her I would happily help her attract people, but not women only.
We must also look at career satisfaction and burnout/career change. These will be all over the map depending on the INDIVIDUAL and his/her circumstances, gifts, personality, and other uniquenesses and are impossible to accurately quantify.
I saw and worked with in the 80’s the bizarrely awful employees who were shunted to the front of the hiring line because of race and gender. We even had one guy who was hired because he had a “Hispanic surname,” but was not himself Hispanic. The name could cause discrimination, ya know! Every one of these special people was a nightmare to work with, and was out of their depth and incompetent.
I have enormous respect for Jim, but I do not consider resisting gender (or race, etc.) focus on selling careers to be misguided. Let’s ask the right questions, create the right playing field for success, and see what happens.
-
I guess my thinking is if women may not be succeeding in some fields it is far more likely to be a matter of socialization than biology.
....There is biological reason that women can't do math and physics. There is nothing about having two X chromosomes, or having the bloodstream diffused with estrogen (fun fact, estrogen and testosterone differ by exactly one methyl group). .....
(I think you meant there is no biological reason.....)
I think there is something about gender that makes an innate biological difference in interests. From birth, boys have different interests than girls. Our closest primate relatives show the exact same thing. In chimpanzees and in monkeys and baboons, male babies and youth spend much more time rough housing with their friends than do females, and young females have intense interest in newborn babies, and constantly try to "borrow" them from their mothers, whereas the male young show far less to even no interest in babies.
If you accept evolution, and you accept that in the tree of life homo sapiens is very, very closely related to other primates, you cannot ignore the similarities with human children, where girls prefer dolls and boys prefer trucks and trains and toy guns. It is very hard to argue that the monkeys and apes are "socializing" their babies to prefer roughhousing or play auntie to younger babies. Likewise, studies with human babies have pretty much conclusively shown that gender differences exist from birth.
So yes, I think there is a biological reason women are less likely to prefer math and physics, but I agree with you that there is no biological reason women can't do math and physics. They can. Likewise in monkeys and apes, the female NHP youth do engage in rough house play, just not nearly to the extent the males do, and the males are capable of carrying and caring for babies, they just don't go seeking it the way females do.
Saying that all women think the same way and want the same things is insipidly stupid.
Absolutely. But we are talking about averages, and tendencies in large groups. There is significant overlap. There can be a statistical likelihood that any one individual fits the norm, but you cannot state conclusively about any one individual.
You can't say all women think the same way any more than all men do, or all blacks think the same way or want the same thing. But you cannot ignore majority behavior either. To me it is equally wrong to force an individual to comply with that majority behavior, as it is to try to force them away from it from a misguided notion that they "should" be more "equal" to the other gender. Both are wrong.
This is hugely important to us. The pilot population has been decreasing for decades. If we're to stem this tide some out of the box thinking may be required. Half the population is 6% of pilots, despite the fact that many have the wherewithal and I bet would make better pilots than lots of the men. There isn't some biological impressive keeping women out of the cockpit, its how they're treated by society.
There is biological reason that women can't do math and physics. There is nothing about having two X chromosomes, or having the bloodstream diffused with estrogen (fun fact, estrogen and testosterone differ by exactly one methyl group). It is something about how they're treated by their fellow humans, and if we can figure out what that is we might have a big new group of potential pilots.
The problem with tendencies in large groups with a bell curve distribution is that when something requires a high score on a certain parameter, you will get much more meaningful differences at either ends of the distribution. Let's say interest in math and physics is on bell curve. There is a curve for men and there is a curve for women and all the individuals are represented somewhere on those curves, but the mean for men is higher than the mean for women.
Then lets say you have an occupation that does not require any particular outstanding strength in math or physics. The number of individuals that would be able to do that occupation is very large, of both men and women, because in the average range of the ability the bell curve peaks for each are nearby and the proportional difference between them is small.
But let's say there's an occupation requiring a high degree of interest and knowledge of math and physics. If you pick a cutoff below which the individual is unable to perform, now look at the tails of the two bell curves and you will see proportionately many more individuals in the curve that is shifted more to the right, in this case, males.
This is why males are disproportionately represented in certain fields requiring a high interest in STEM or a high level of motivation to succeed (overly represented as CEOs). It might not be discrimination against women AT ALL. It might just be that the abilities to perform are along bell curves that are different for males and females in a biologically innate way.
This does not mean men are worth more than women. On other scales women are superior. Women score higher than men in nurturing, and in intuition, and in certain communication skills, and in some kinds of judgment. Women are more likely to pick up on subtle signs of illness in others. Women are better at reading emotions on faces. Women see the world more holistically, men see it more in terms of linear logic. (Incidentally I believe this is resulting in large numbers of primary care female doctors moving toward a more integrated approach to the patient, and I think it's a very good thing, because male doctors have too long viewed us as sets of unrelated systems ie: GI, neuro, cardiac, etc., all having little to do with each other, which is turning out to be a disaster, while men are still fantastic at fixing linear isolated problems like surgically removing a brain tumor.)
It's not good or bad but it is biologically innate, I believe, because innate gender differences exist through other species and there is no reason to believe humans are exempt.
But to your question about pilots. I believe you are correct that looking to engage more females to want to be pilots is a possible solution. I think the biggest problem is that we are no longer producing enough young! The population is aging and we in the first world are barely at replacement reproduction, under it in fact in many places. It has become a crisis in Japan for example.
If you accept the notion, as I do, that being a pilot requires a certain level of interest in STEM plus a certain level of intelligence plus a certain level of health, there is a limit to the proportion of the population pool that can be pilots. As you go out to the right on the STEM bell curve, you'll have a larger portion of your pool male. On the health curve possibly the female pool will be larger. Intelligence is fairly even between the genders but there may be a slight edge of males on the top and bottom ends.
Any one individual may vary from the averages of his/her gender, so there will be females interested in math and physics but there will be fewer of them. The challenge is to make sure the ones that do, have the opportunity to follow their interest. The challenge is not to try to create unnatural interest in STEM in females who otherwise aren't.