Men On The Internet Don’t Believe Sexism Is A Problem In Science

lilbabycat said:
They don't, until you throw a woman into the mix. Haven't you read the Bible?
Click to expand...

Dude, no. Serious time just happened.

I'm a Christian, and it was THE MAN'S FAULT for going along with the women. He was instructed DIRECTLY by God NOT to eat from the tree under any circumstances. Was the woman at fault? Yes. Was the man at greater fault because he coudn't control himself around a woman? Yes. Let's not displace accountability here.

Oddly enough, it's funny how much trouble has been caused by men not being able to control themselves around women. Go throughout history and it's a theme that repeats and continues to repeat to this very second.

Now, back on to the topic of gender equality :rolleyes:
 
What about the gender gap of stay at home Dads vs Moms? What about the gap between white and black men who have run a sub 10 second 100m? Or the Gap of boys and girls in shop class or home ecc

People are allowed to prefer one thing over the other everyone has their strengths and weakness - or preference of things to devote one's self to - for whatever the reason may be -it just is.

So if a woman has proof she has been discriminated against - then it needs to be addressed, but just b/c less of them choose to pursue a subject doesn't automatically mean discrimination is involved and that something must be done. Its the old tale of correlation /= causation.
 
MySongRanHills said:
What about the gender gap of stay at home Dads vs Moms? What about the gap between white and black men who have run a sub 10 second 100m? Or the Gap of boys and girls in shop class or home ecc

People are allowed to prefer one thing over the other everyone has their strengths and weakness - or preference of things to devote one's self to - for whatever the reason may be -it just is.

So if a woman has proof she has been discriminated against - then it needs to be addressed, but just b/c less of them choose to pursue a subject doesn't automatically mean discrimination is involved and that something must be done. Its the old tale of correlation /= causation.
Click to expand...

In many countries, including the USA, there are still paternalistic tendencies that encourage males in certain professions and discourage females ... statistically women avoid STEM professions, some of that is preference and some of that is how they are encouraged and supported

I see nothing wrong with a concerted effort by business to encourage diversity candidates in the STEM fields (using scholarships, internships, etc) to encourage and groom people from the missing categories) ... I don't think government needs to get involved other than making general improvements to the national education standards (No Child Left Behind has been one of the worst things that ever happened to education in the USA) and possibly improving tax policies so that companies are rewarded for these types of positive behaviors
 
kbrickley said:
In many countries, including the USA, there are still paternalistic tendencies that encourage males in certain professions and discourage females ... statistically women avoid STEM professions, some of that is preference and some of that is how they are encouraged and supported

I see nothing wrong with a concerted effort by business to encourage diversity candidates in the STEM fields (using scholarships, internships, etc) to encourage and groom people from the missing categories) ... I don't think government needs to get involved other than making general improvements to the national education standards (No Child Left Behind has been one of the worst things that ever happened to education in the USA) and possibly improving tax policies so that companies are rewarded for these types of positive behaviors
Click to expand...

I want to agree on principle, but it seems the encouraging diversity only works one way. When was the last time any one took an initiative to encourage more males to do anything? But there is a gap in nursing, where are the outcries for more male nurses?
 
MySongRanHills said:
I want to agree on principle, but it seems the encouraging diversity only works one way. When was the last time any one took an initiative to encourage more males to do anything? But there is a gap in nursing, where are the outcries for more male nurses?
Click to expand...

Society or business can prioritize based on need and there are financial pressures going the other way ... so called women's professions (teachers, nurses, admins, etc) are usually lower paid and that factors into the interest of men ... I think that teaching is the one area where a reverse focus could be beneficial (if we paid teachers more and didn't have so many obstacles to their success it would be a good profession for both men and women)

Men also have the most flexibility in professions, except where financial pressures force then to make specific career choices (being a working engineer pays significantly more than teaching engineering) ... also, except where society has reverse gender discrimination (a heterosexual man who became a hair dresser or dress maker would face significant societal discrimination) there are fewer obstacles for men pursuing what they are interested in
 
atp1916 said:
Dude, no. Serious time just happened.

Now, back on to the topic of gender equality :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
iq-by-college-major-gender.png


Just sayin'.
 
in this big fail thread, has anyone actually shown there is a problem? Saying that there are less women than men in a field does not mean there is a problem and does not mean that there is any institutionalized sexism. A much stronger case is to be made is that women do not prefer STEM fields.
 
kbrickley said:
Society or business can prioritize based on need
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by this....
kbrickley said:
..except where society has reverse gender discrimination (a heterosexual man who became a hair dresser or dress maker would face significant societal discrimination) there are fewer obstacles for men pursuing what they are interested in
Click to expand...
While I agree with you, I think if you asked most straight men they'd say they have no interest in being a fashion designer, make up artist, etc. Why do they have no interest ? B/c as you said earlier at a young age they are encouraged toward other fields and made to feel like "sissies" if those are their interests. This goes back to gender roles - they exist b/c for most(not all)men regardless of which way they are encouraged or pushed have little to no interests in such things. For the minority of women or men who don't fit neatly into the predefined gender roles they will always have a harder time - it is jsut human nature we like to categorize people neatly and quickly. Hopefully society keeps getting more open minded as time goes on - making it easier for those who don't fit neatly into societies little boxes. Some bias will always remain b/c human social structure demands some level of conformity.

Less then 10% or nurses are men and nursing is one of the few fields where you can make 60k plus with 2-3 years of school. Currently over 20% of women are involved in STEM fields. I'm just saying we shouldn't fight a gap we should fight discrimination.

Right now there is so much pressure on tech companies to higher minorities(other than asians) and women. it would be easier to get a tech job as a qualified woman b/c a company wants to be able to say "We have X% of women comapred to company B - go attack them"

Best point you made was about pay discrepancy between man and woman dominated fields. The only thing I can say to that is there are more jobs in those feilds(number of teachers in USA > # of programmers ) So supply and demand dictate the pay gap.
 
Not sure what you mean by this....
Click to expand...

When I say they can prioritize based on need there is a perception in the tech business that they don't have a sufficient number of employees from certain diversity groups ... this is partially based on a misalignment of their employee base to their customer base and the perception that it is more competitive for a company to have a wide diversity of opinions and backgrounds in their employees ... because business is interested in obtaining more qualified candidates in the desired categories, they are interested in pursuing programs that generate qualified or world class candidates from the desired categories
 
kbrickley said:
When I say they can prioritize based on need there is a perception in the tech business that they don't have a sufficient number of employees from certain diversity groups ... this is partially based on a misalignment of their employee base to their customer base and the perception that it is more competitive for a company to have a wide diversity of opinions and backgrounds in their employees ... because business is interested in obtaining more qualified candidates in the desired categories, they are interested in pursuing programs that generate qualified or world class candidates from the desired categories
Click to expand...

Ahhh, Ok i see what you were saying.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
It's like looking at a mirror or something..I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the base appeal to a particular gender could it? Nah..that's crazy talk. We obviously need to pass more laws to get more men getting degrees in healthcare and public administration.
Click to expand...

This fact is vehemently rejected by the current breed of feminists, but it is pretty much entirely true from a psychological standpoint.

Different genders are more inclined to participate in different professions and have different interests, and it is not merely a matter of social conditioning as the feminist agenda has suggested.

To quote that all encompassing blog post again:

blog post said:
On the other hand, I also think people who neglect biological causes are doing the issue a disservice. Did you know that young monkeys express pretty much exactly the same gendered toy preferences as human children? Rhesus monkeys, vervet monkeys, pretty much whatever species of monkeys you try it on, the male monkeys enjoy wheeled toys more and the female monkeys plush toys more. The word reviewers use to describe the magnitude of the result is “overwhelming”. When intersex children are raised as other than their biological gender, their toy preference and behavior are consistently that associated with their biological gender and not the gender they are being raised as, even when they themselves are unaware their biological gender is different. This occurs even when parents reinforce them more for playing with their gender-being-raised-as toys. You can even successfully correlate the degree of this with the precise amount of androgen they get in the womb, and if you experimentally manipulate the amount of hormones monkeys receive in the womb, their gendered play will change accordingly. 2D:4D ratio, a level of how much testosterone is released during a crucial developmental period, accurately predicts scores both on a UK test of mathematical ability at age seven and the SATs in high school.
Click to expand...
 
Zarathustra[H];1041361285 said:
This fact is vehemently rejected by the current breed of feminists, but it is pretty much entirely true from a psychological standpoint.

Different genders are more inclined to participate in different professions and have different interests, and it is not merely a matter of social conditioning as the feminist agenda has suggested.

To quote that all encompassing blog post again:

blog post said:
On the other hand, I also think people who neglect biological causes are doing the issue a disservice. Did you know that young monkeys express pretty much exactly the same gendered toy preferences as human children? Rhesus monkeys, vervet monkeys, pretty much whatever species of monkeys you try it on, the male monkeys enjoy wheeled toys more and the female monkeys plush toys more. The word reviewers use to describe the magnitude of the result is “overwhelming”. When intersex children are raised as other than their biological gender, their toy preference and behavior are consistently that associated with their biological gender and not the gender they are being raised as, even when they themselves are unaware their biological gender is different. This occurs even when parents reinforce them more for playing with their gender-being-raised-as toys. You can even successfully correlate the degree of this with the precise amount of androgen they get in the womb, and if you experimentally manipulate the amount of hormones monkeys receive in the womb, their gendered play will change accordingly. 2D:4D ratio, a level of how much testosterone is released during a crucial developmental period, accurately predicts scores both on a UK test of mathematical ability at age seven and the SATs in high school.
Click to expand...
http://www.livescience.com/7290-finger-length-predicts-sat-performance.html
Click to expand...


Oops.. Messed up the quote tags on that one, and no edit.

I'm not saying that gender discrimination isn't an issue, but the evidence suggests that when it comes to female presence in different fields in the workforce, it is much smaller than the radical feminist agenda suggests.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041361289 said:
Oops.. Messed up the quote tags on that one, and no edit.

I'm not saying that gender discrimination isn't an issue, but the evidence suggests that when it comes to female presence in different fields in the workforce, it is much smaller than the radical feminist agenda suggests.
Click to expand...

I think there are also strong interests from the business side as well (in certain industries) ... in the B2B world you only need to meet your customer's language needs (so candidates with different language skills might be beneficial) ... in the consumer space where you must compete with other companies for marketshare and mindshare of the consumer base you do run a higher risk of falling out of touch with your customers if your employees are not reflective of your overall consumer base (if 50% of your customers are women, you can benefit if a larger number of your employees are also women rather than WASP males) :cool:
 
Zarathustra[H];1041361285 said:
This fact is vehemently rejected by the current breed of feminists, but it is pretty much entirely true from a psychological standpoint.

Different genders are more inclined to participate in different professions and have different interests, and it is not merely a matter of social conditioning as the feminist agenda has suggested.

To quote that all encompassing blog post again:

blog post said:
On the other hand, I also think people who neglect biological causes are doing the issue a disservice. Did you know that young monkeys express pretty much exactly the same gendered toy preferences as human children? Rhesus monkeys, vervet monkeys, pretty much whatever species of monkeys you try it on, the male monkeys enjoy wheeled toys more and the female monkeys plush toys more. The word reviewers use to describe the magnitude of the result is “overwhelming”. When intersex children are raised as other than their biological gender, their toy preference and behavior are consistently that associated with their biological gender and not the gender they are being raised as, even when they themselves are unaware their biological gender is different. This occurs even when parents reinforce them more for playing with their gender-being-raised-as toys. You can even successfully correlate the degree of this with the precise amount of androgen they get in the womb, and if you experimentally manipulate the amount of hormones monkeys receive in the womb, their gendered play will change accordingly. 2D:4D ratio, a level of how much testosterone is released during a crucial developmental period, accurately predicts scores both on a UK test of mathematical ability at age seven and the SATs in high school.
Click to expand...


This^ couldn't have possibly said it better, so frustrating when people act like we are all robots born with the same amount of talent/predisposition as everyone else.
Click to expand...
 
MySongRanHills said:
This^ couldn't have possibly said it better, so frustrating when people act like we are all robots born with the same amount of talent/predisposition as everyone else.
Click to expand...

I've been saying that for a long time. Men and women are INHERENTLY different. This entire "equality" argument is... not necessarily utter hogwash, but it's not very sound. Do you think that the roles that we have evolved into today are mere coincidence or some kind of conspiracy? Can men bear children? Can women hunt live prey while pregnant? (maybe but not very effectively).

Supposing that this is some kind of societal conspiracy, what does anyone get out of it? Specifically that there are less women than men in science. What does any company get out of keeping this kind of societal pressure up? Or even why a glass ceiling was created for women. Is it simply unjust repression?

Fact of the matter is women and men are different on a biological level, and at the current level of advancement for human civilization as a whole, our biology is still a major (if not the absolute dominant) factor to our behaviors and life. You know what everyone has to do regardless of who they are? Defecate, piss, and have sexual intercourse (or some substitute thereof). Genetic makeup will likely determine your entire career choice and behavior and lifestyle.


I mean "sexism", "race", "money", etc... these words weren't even created overnight. It's not like these have always existed. Humans created speech and language itself over... what, millenia? The one constant factor during these times was the scarcity of resources and the desire of every creature to survive and have more of them. Indirect payment due to some kind of enforced currency system (rather than simple trading), the fact that we even have payment at all, the fact that trading existed, the fact that we're on a roughly free trade system where everyone makes unequal amounts of money, that sometimes is not in proportion with their societal contribution... The concepts of proportion and contribution at all. These were concepts created by us, and developed for the society we evolved into. Yet at its roots our society had our primordial selves. So supposing the search for some "reason" has solid foundations in the first place, I propose most major factors in society currently have some kind of reason that has its roots due to something much older and perhaps immutable.

Kind of what annoys me when it comes to other sentient life in video games. They're always too similar to us, with just relatively minor tweaks. Their concept of society and whatnot as a while is close enough to ours to where I can't really see them as anything other than humans from a slightly different society in a different skin. Looking at you, Mass Effect. >_>


... Er went off track there. Well it went off track by the second or third paragraph. Anyway, long story short I think if we want true "equality" then humans will have to change everything about themselves. Down to the very roots. We won't really be humans anymore.
 
lilbabycat said:
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
iq-by-college-major-gender.png


Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Yowzer!

StoleMyOwnCar said:
I've been saying that for a long time. Men and women are INHERENTLY different.
Click to expand...

Yup. Observed this first-hand with my not quite 2 year old son.

From the time he was able to move himself around on his own and started playing with toys beyond just generic baby toys, the kid has been all boy. We exposed him to a wide variety of types of toys and activities, but he instantly gravitated toward the cars, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, etc and loves wrestling, throwing balls...all of the "typical boy" activities.

Dolls, dress-up (unless it's as a fireman, superhero, etc.), tea parties...wants nothing to do with it.
 
Anyway, long story short I think if we want true "equality" then humans will have to change everything about themselves. Down to the very roots. We won't really be humans anymore.
Click to expand...

Absolute equality would be a horror of tremendous proportions (the world of Harrison Bergeron) but there is nothing wrong with improving the equality of opportunity ... The Nature over Nurture folks like to claim that men are engineers because they are better at it than women ... the Nurture over Nature folks like to claim that anyone can overcome obstacles given sufficient nurturing ... the truth is probably between the two ... sufficient nurturing can definitely overcome a wide range of obstacles due to nature ... I see nothing wrong with establishing better systems to nurture diversity candidates (which is generally what these companies would like to have) ... it doesn't detract from opportunities for white and Asian males to expand the pool of other qualified candidates and can help the companies to have access to a pool of employees that is reflective of their consumer base
 
Parja said:
Yowzer!



Yup. Observed this first-hand with my not quite 2 year old son.

From the time he was able to move himself around on his own and started playing with toys beyond just generic baby toys, the kid has been all boy. We exposed him to a wide variety of types of toys and activities, but he instantly gravitated toward the cars, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, etc and loves wrestling, throwing balls...all of the "typical boy" activities.

Dolls, dress-up (unless it's as a fireman, superhero, etc.), tea parties...wants nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

The important note here from a gender discrimination/feminism perspective is, is this due to biological reasons, or is it due to reasons of cultural conditioning.

Radical feminists would like us to believe it's all cultural conditioning, and we are all identical, but science is more and more showing that this is not the case.

Both certainly play a role, but scientific studies (as linked en masse in my post above) seem to be proving that biology plays a MUCH larger role than cultural conditioning does.

That doesn't mean that all men are going to choose more abstract fields, and all women are going to choose fields with more human involvement. Every individual is different, and these differences between the genders show a statistical spread with some overlap between them.

It DOES however mean that on average, more men are going to choose abstract fields, and more women are going to choose fields with human interaction.

This - more than anything else - drives the differences in the representation of men and women in different fields.

Yes, gender bias, discrimination and harassment do exist, and do have an impact, but that impact is much smaller than the overall impact of biology. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it though. We should.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041361289 said:
Oops.. Messed up the quote tags on that one, and no edit.

I'm not saying that gender discrimination isn't an issue, but the evidence suggests that when it comes to female presence in different fields in the workforce, it is much smaller than the radical feminist agenda suggests.
Click to expand...

Exactly..now don't get me wrong. Show me indisputable proof that discrimination of any kind exists and I am completely on board with the notion of that shit needs to be stamped out hard. However rarely does anyone show up with actual proof. they show up with assumptions and numbers that don't mean a damn thing or show a group making less than another group in a field but don't actually prove that all skills/qualifications between the groups were in fact equal. That kind of crap I am not on board with.

Parja said:
Yowzer!



Yup. Observed this first-hand with my not quite 2 year old son.

From the time he was able to move himself around on his own and started playing with toys beyond just generic baby toys, the kid has been all boy. We exposed him to a wide variety of types of toys and activities, but he instantly gravitated toward the cars, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, etc and loves wrestling, throwing balls...all of the "typical boy" activities.

Dolls, dress-up (unless it's as a fireman, superhero, etc.), tea parties...wants nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have both a 4 year old boy and an 8 year old girl. They literally could NOT be any more different. He is into completely different toys despite having access to everything of hers as well. He mostly just destroys hers.. :D
 
Zarathustra[H];1041361678 said:
Yes, gender bias, discrimination and harassment do exist, and do have an impact, but that impact is much smaller than the overall impact of biology. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it though. We should.
Click to expand...

Science has shown that our system isn't broke, so lets fix it!
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Exactly..now don't get me wrong. Show me indisputable proof that discrimination of any kind exists and I am completely on board with the notion of that shit needs to be stamped out hard. However rarely does anyone show up with actual proof.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is it, you'd have to be a neanderthal to be ok with actual discrimination, and hopefully most of us are all about getting rid of that shit.

But to cry discrimination just b/c not every field is 50% male and 50% women is not only disingenuous, but it does a complete disservice to getting rid of real discrimination.
 
lilbabycat said:
Science has shown that our system isn't broke, so lets fix it!
Click to expand...

We have to be careful of using statistical or genetic analysis to create a system of social Darwinism ... science has indicated that it is easier for certain groups than others to complete the learning and use the skills for certain professions (that doesn't mean it is impossible for the others) ... business has an interest in expanding their pool of employees in certain underrepresented groups (based on their preference) and there is nothing wrong with them taking direct action or in lobbying the government to make changes that allow a wider range of candidates to succeed and complete the required education process ;)
 
MySongRanHills said:
Yeah this is it, you'd have to be a neanderthal to be ok with actual discrimination, and hopefully most of us are all about getting rid of that shit.

But to cry discrimination just b/c not every field is 50% male and 50% women is not only disingenuous, but it does a complete disservice to getting rid of real discrimination.
Click to expand...

This.
 
kbrickley said:
We have to be careful of using statistical or genetic analysis to create a system of social Darwinism ... science has indicated that it is easier for certain groups than others to complete the learning and use the skills for certain professions (that doesn't mean it is impossible for the others) ... business has an interest in expanding their pool of employees in certain underrepresented groups (based on their preference) and there is nothing wrong with them taking direct action or in lobbying the government to make changes that allow a wider range of candidates to succeed and complete the required education process ;)
Click to expand...

You don't think the nature of capitalism takes care of this without the need for gov. intervention?

Take for example if I owned an IT consulting firm and was trying to expand into Brazil, but none of my current staff spoke portuguese. By offering enough $ some one who speaks portuguese and has the ability to learn the skills will be persuaded to to choose a comp sci major over something else, or one of my existing staff will be motivated to learn portuguese to leverage a raise.
 
kbrickley said:
We have to be careful of using statistical or genetic analysis to create a system of social Darwinism ... science has indicated that it is easier for certain groups than others to complete the learning and use the skills for certain professions (that doesn't mean it is impossible for the others)
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on social Darwinism. What groups are you talking about?
 
kbrickley said:
We have to be careful of using statistical or genetic analysis to create a system of social Darwinism ... science has indicated that it is easier for certain groups than others to complete the learning and use the skills for certain professions (that doesn't mean it is impossible for the others) ... business has an interest in expanding their pool of employees in certain underrepresented groups (based on their preference) and there is nothing wrong with them taking direct action or in lobbying the government to make changes that allow a wider range of candidates to succeed and complete the required education process ;)
Click to expand...

Women are not being prevented from succeeding in science in the US. This is very most likely not true in every country. And there are probably some exceptions in the US, but rare. So what changes should the US government make? All women in the US need to do is decide that they want to do these things. They could be dissuaded because science seems boring, or maybe because they don't want to go into a male-dominated field, or even because they want a simpler job where they can more easily raise a family. Men can't fix these things. Nor can the government. The only people that can get more women involved are women... by choosing to go into these fields. We don't need sexist sales pitches to get women into technical fields because careers shouldn't be advertised or thought of as gender-specific to begin with. I'm in IT and I went to school for CS and nothing about that appealed to me specifically as a male. It appealed to me because it interested me.

I cannot speak of how to fix the problem in other countries where women really are mistreated.

Also, this is not to say that there are no sexist men in the field who will harass women. That is unacceptable and those specific men should be dealt with (be it by firing them or charging them or whatever depending on the specific case). There are also women who would harass men, though the number is probably a good amount lower.
 
dandragonrage said:
, or even because they want a simpler job where they can more easily raise a family. Men can't fix these things. Nor can the government.
Click to expand...

Well, government has been used to limit the career/family interaction in many of our more liberal European counterparts, by legally requiring that both parents take maternity/paternity leave, so the career impact of raising a family is equal or as equal as possible) on both genders.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041361822 said:
Well, government has been used to limit the career/family interaction in many of our more liberal European counterparts, by legally requiring that both parents take maternity/paternity leave, so the career impact of raising a family is equal or as equal as possible) on both genders.
Click to expand...

I can't support that. I support the idea of men being just as involved with their children as women, but not at gunpoint by government agents...
 
So, call me a simpleton who cannot wrap his head around this subject.

What is the issue here really?

Are women stating that they cannot obtain jobs in various fields because they are properly educated but being rejected due to being women?

Or are women stating that they cannot obtain jobs in various fields because they are women without the proper education/knowledge to do the job, but think they are not getting the job due to being a woman?



I haven't met one women whom I have worked with in IT that was worth their weight in anything. I have had 2 managers in IT who were female, did not know what a driver it, didn't know asset management etc etc etc.....in fact a previous position our CIO was female and she didn't know about smart phones being used in our company (didnt know what they were) this was around the time the iphone 5 came out.



So, based on my professional experience the women in IT I have worked with were put there for reasons other than education/knowledge.


My personal opinion? If you can physically and mentality do the job, you should be hire-able, no matter sex/race/creed. The only thing that should matter is weight/height restrictions for safety reasons. Main reason I will never work for ATT, i r fat :(
 
JPF_ said:
What is the issue here really?

Are women stating that they cannot obtain jobs in various fields because they are properly educated but being rejected due to being women?

Or are women stating that they cannot obtain jobs in various fields because they are women without the proper education/knowledge to do the job, but think they are not getting the job due to being a woman?



I haven't met one women whom I have worked with in IT that was worth their weight in anything. I have had 2 managers in IT who were female, did not know what a driver it, didn't know asset management etc etc etc.....in fact a previous position our CIO was female and she didn't know about smart phones being used in our company (didnt know what they were) this was around the time the iphone 5 came out.



So, based on my professional experience the women in IT I have worked with were put there for reasons other than education/knowledge.


My personal opinion? If you can physically and mentality do the job, you should be hire-able, no matter sex/race/creed. The only thing that should matter is weight/height restrictions for safety reasons. Main reason I will never work for ATT, i r fat :(
Click to expand...

I don't think there is mass agreement on the specific issue here. People are just looking at "diversity figures," have some sort of emotional and illogical response, and pressure the government to do something about it. Because that is what government is to most people today. It must save us from everything that anyone feels is a problem.

I've worked with men who are great at their job. I've worked with women who are great at their job. I have worked with men who are slackers. I have worked with women who are slackers. I have worked with men who are complete assholes. I have worked with women who are complete assholes. I've had good and bad bosses of both genders. None of this is gender-specific.

The downside of statistics is that most people don't understand how they work. Statistics only work on extremely large sample sizes. You cannot apply statistics to every - or even many - situations in your actual life. They can help you understand a large and complex system but they do not work in reverse. And they sure as hell aren't logical to use to determine if government needs to start adding ponies and the color pink and other sexist bullshit into advertisements for learning about technology.
 
Where's this story, Women (on the Internet) don’t believe sexism is a problem in Fashion, even when they see evidence
 
dandragonrage said:
I don't think there is mass agreement on the specific issue here. People are just looking at "diversity figures," have some sort of emotional and illogical response, and pressure the government to do something about it. Because that is what government is to most people today. It must save us from everything that anyone feels is a problem.

I've worked with men who are great at their job. I've worked with women who are great at their job. I have worked with men who are slackers. I have worked with women who are slackers. I have worked with men who are complete assholes. I have worked with women who are complete assholes. I've had good and bad bosses of both genders. None of this is gender-specific.

The downside of statistics is that most people don't understand how they work. Statistics only work on extremely large sample sizes. You cannot apply statistics to every - or even many - situations in your actual life. They can help you understand a large and complex system but they do not work in reverse. And they sure as hell aren't logical to use to determine if government needs to start adding ponies and the color pink and other sexist bullshit into advertisements for learning about technology.
Click to expand...


Very good response, thank you!


And I agree with you, I am not/nor ever would say that because I worked with over 6 females in IT and they all sucked it means that all women in IT suck.

I'm quite positive there are many very well skilled IT females out there. They are hard to come by in my realm. I also live in the south so....that may also have to do with it. The majority of women here go into Healthcare of some form.....
 
BladeVenom said:
Where's this story, Women (on the Internet) don’t believe sexism is a problem in Fashion, even when they see evidence
Click to expand...

Or lets talk about fathers who are harassed simply for being around children. I'm not saying this is the case for every man or that every woman does this, but there is a general viewpoint that women are better with and more trustworthy around children. I've heard of men having the cops called on them just for taking their child to a park.

Here is one of many stories: http://www.freerangekids.com/mom-sees-man-in-school-parking-lot-calls-911-why-did-cops-take-so-long/

How about this kind of sexism? Why doesn't it get airtime on the news? Why is it okay to consider a man 'suspicious' just for being a man?
 
JPF_ said:
What is the issue here really?

Are women stating that they cannot obtain jobs in various fields because they are properly educated but being rejected due to being women?

Or are women stating that they cannot obtain jobs in various fields because they are women without the proper education/knowledge to do the job, but think they are not getting the job due to being a woman?
Click to expand...

From what I can tell it's neither. (though I could be wrong)

Most women I know in STEM fields (I work with many :p ) are very happy regarding their equal treatment.

I'm pretty lucky that in my field demand far outpaces supply, so qualified candidates (be they male or female) are swooped up nearly instantly. This seems to be the case among good software engineers as well.

What it seems to be is a bunch of professional victims with blogs with no relationship to the actual "women in STEM" looking at data from the outside and screaming "OMG! 25% to 75%, PATRIARCHY MUST DIE!" and then getting clicks from people like us, and collecting ad revenue.

Again, don't get me wrong. There ARE real problems with gender bias, discrimination and harassment, and as a person in favor of full equality I think they must be solved as a matter of justice.

I just feel there are echo chambers of Anita Sarkeesian, Amanda Marcotte, Laurie Penny and their followers who have real incentive in keeping the outrage going (consulting gigs, speaking gigs, ad revenue and publication deals) and aren't in tune with reality. They probably started out as decent advocates for gender equality, but they locked themselves so far into their echo chambers that their ideas no longer resemble reality. They are ruthless bullies going around nerd shaming and stirring the pot, and completely insulate themselves and will not listen to fact or reason. (In fact, not immediately accepting what they are saying on the merit of them having said it alone, and instead demanding some sort of evidence, or trying to refute them with evidence, now has its own derogatory term "sea lioning", and through some flabbergasting form of self delusion has also been spun as a form of harassment...

So, I am fully on board with social justice. I am fully on board with gender equality. I just can not call myself a feminist, as I now associate that word with a group of mouth breathing loudmouth bullies not concerned with truth or fact, and laughing all the way to the bank by stirring up controversy.
 
dandragonrage said:
Women are not being prevented from succeeding in science in the US. This is very most likely not true in every country. And there are probably some exceptions in the US, but rare. So what changes should the US government make? All women in the US need to do is decide that they want to do these things. They could be dissuaded because science seems boring, or maybe because they don't want to go into a male-dominated field, or even because they want a simpler job where they can more easily raise a family. Men can't fix these things. Nor can the government. The only people that can get more women involved are women... by choosing to go into these fields. We don't need sexist sales pitches to get women into technical fields because careers shouldn't be advertised or thought of as gender-specific to begin with. I'm in IT and I went to school for CS and nothing about that appealed to me specifically as a male. It appealed to me because it interested me.

I cannot speak of how to fix the problem in other countries where women really are mistreated.

Also, this is not to say that there are no sexist men in the field who will harass women. That is unacceptable and those specific men should be dealt with (be it by firing them or charging them or whatever depending on the specific case). There are also women who would harass men, though the number is probably a good amount lower.
Click to expand...

I think one change we need to make is abandon the No Child Left Behind program in favor of forcing all students (male and female) to complete much more stringent math and science offerings in the college prep curriculum (and prohibit the individual states from watering down science curriculum) ... to accommodate the other students we could take more of an EU approach and test the kids before High School and route them to a suitable school based on their test scores (college prep, vocational, social sciences) ... if students don't like where their test score routes them then they could go to a private school of their own choosing (and pay for their education themselves)

The USA used to lead the world in STEM degrees and we are now falling far behind ... we have offset some of that drop with the pool of H1B workers but we are starting to lose some of those workers to their home countries ... we need more STEM focus in this country to satisfy the needs of business so they are not forced to move jobs overseas because of a lack of qualified candidates in this country ... government is supposed to serve the needs of both its citizens and its businesses and the education system in the USA is serving the needs of neither currently

Another option would be for the government to get out of education completely and allow business to work directly with the States to create curriculums that favor the needs of business in the USA (including grooming the workers they feel they need)
 
kbrickley said:
I think one change we need to make is abandon the No Child Left Behind program in favor of forcing all students (male and female) to complete much more stringent math and science offerings in the college prep curriculum (and prohibit the individual states from watering down science curriculum) ... to accommodate the other students we could take more of an EU approach and test the kids before High School and route them to a suitable school based on their test scores (college prep, vocational, social sciences) ... if students don't like where their test score routes them then they could go to a private school of their own choosing (and pay for their education themselves)
Click to expand...

16102883277_70d571f64d_o.png


:D
 
kbrickley said:
I think one change we need to make is abandon the No Child Left Behind program in favor of forcing all students (male and female) to complete much more stringent math and science offerings in the college prep curriculum (and prohibit the individual states from watering down science curriculum) ... to accommodate the other students we could take more of an EU approach and test the kids before High School and route them to a suitable school based on their test scores (college prep, vocational, social sciences) ... if students don't like where their test score routes them then they could go to a private school of their own choosing (and pay for their education themselves)
Click to expand...

I very much agree with you on stupid ideas like No Child Left Behind. The world does not and cannot survive on "good feelings." People don't all think the same way and it is not helpful to hold people from advancing to their capabilities or using the strengths of their own mind. Common Core is another bad one as is most standardized testing (none of which is even remotely real-world or useful). Common Core tries to force children to solve problems only in one textbook way. It does not allow people to utilize their own strengths effectively. It does not promote the idea of problem solving or thinking outside the box. It does the opposite. It provides a box for people to remain in (enforced by 'teachers' and standardized testing).

However, none of this has anything to do with gender.
 
The problem with no child left behind is it assumes all children start from an equal point - nothing is further from the truth.

"Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.8 (where 1.0 indicates that monozygotic twins have no variance in IQ and 0 indicates that their IQs are completely uncorrelated)."

taken word for word from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Even if you disregard nature completely and say everything is due to nature there isn't an equal starting point. My mother is a teacher has taught @ a school with over 80% on free lunch and at a school where average home price in the area was north of 200k. The involvement of parents is crucial, at the poor school many parents didn't return calls about lack of homework or skipped parent teacher conferences. At the rich school my mom complains how involved some parents are(there child is just SOOO special)

So trying to compare an apple situation to an orange situation is a terrible idea. Better to compare like against like. No child left behind screams "You must be terrible teachers b/c you can get apple test scores from oranges so we will cut your funding"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top