Laura Park, an assistant professor of psychology at SUNY Buffalo, is on the verge of publishing the results from a series of research projects that explored the connection between romance and women’s interest (or lack thereof) in math and science. In one study, she showed young men and women romantic images, and then surveyed their interest in STEM subjects and degrees. After viewing the images, the men were unmoved, but the women expressed less interest in math and science.

In another study, she found that when women indulged in romantic fancies, they felt happier and more attractive, but shunned their math studies[.]

...

Naturally, this must be a very bad thing, because it is an obstacle to the ever-elusive goal of equality.

So who’s responsible? As usual, it is society, what with those pernicious romantic “scripts” that infect young women from a young age[.]

...

Park speculates that there are two potential solutions: one that simply reduces the possibilities for romance (sex-segregated education), or another that attempts to portray science as romantic. The first solution might actually work — if the will existed to enforce it. However, most young women are sufficiently interested in romance (with men) that they will avoid the largely lesbian women’s schools, and would probably avoid college altogether if it didn’t provide at least the hope of some romantic interludes.

As for the second idea, any attempts to portray science and female scientists as attractive would simply degenerate into a war between various feminist factions over what exactly constitutes “attractive.”

Of course, the most humane and reasonable course of action would be to simply allow young men and women to follow their nature, and stop trying to shove them into roles they do not want. But our official ideology of absolute qualitative equality has gone so far that our social engineers really don’t care what people want any longer — all that matters is that we are indistinguishable on statistical charts.