If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   Math is hard. Let's go shopping   (blogs.scientificamerican.com) divider line 45
    More: Obvious, 2PM, short skirts, goggles, PST The European Commission  
•       •       •

6527 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Jun 2012 at 10:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-22 09:03:32 PM
Quelle horreur!
 
2012-06-22 09:07:19 PM
FTFA: It's an insult to the XX gender

Did Moody's downgrade them from XXX?
 
2012-06-22 09:28:50 PM
"How I carry and present myself is important as a teacher and communicator, but neither of those rely upon short skirts and heels."

And that's why I have one of my modeling headshots along with my author bio at the bottom of my article.

Not really doin' a great job of presenting feminists and intelligent women as something other than humorless harpies with this article.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-06-22 09:31:42 PM
Never once in the past 20+ years I've worked in labs did an experiment or procedure
1) care that I was female


She should start experimenting on dogs.
 
2012-06-22 09:48:35 PM

ZAZ: Never once in the past 20+ years I've worked in labs did an experiment or procedure
1) care that I was female

She should start experimenting on dogs.


Or bears...
 
2012-06-22 10:53:28 PM
This might shock some of the (not only) lesbian critics who think that advertising only presents factual representations of the items that it sells... but NO it doesn't, unless only fashion models eat fast food. So go back to crying about how men are hungry enough to take your job because this advertisement is actually pro-feminist.
 
2012-06-22 10:58:00 PM
Do we begin a conference presentation or a professional lecture by treating the stage like a catwalk and the podium like a pole for dancing on? Ummmmm no.

Actually, that sounds kinda like something we'd do. The grad students, post-docs, and tenured faculty anyhow (the guys still up for tenure take shiat seriously). The serious shiat we do is all in the body of the publications, conferences are for networking, i.e. goofing off, and paper titles are for ridiculous puns and trying to get innuendo past the radar.
 
2012-06-22 11:08:03 PM

Jim_Callahan: Do we begin a conference presentation or a professional lecture by treating the stage like a catwalk and the podium like a pole for dancing on? Ummmmm no.

Actually, that sounds kinda like something we'd do. The grad students, post-docs, and tenured faculty anyhow (the guys still up for tenure take shiat seriously). The serious shiat we do is all in the body of the publications, conferences are for networking, i.e. goofing off, and paper titles are for ridiculous puns and trying to get innuendo past the radar.


After looking at the video a couple of times and studying marketing on a more than superficial level. I think that the first (an better) video is actually not for future scientists themselves but rather for other people.

We as human beings could not exist without the support of others, be them friends, family or coworkers. This video is in fact a plea for acceptance among non-scientist women. Albeit the acceptance is that scientist types can get dates too. (Not as true with men btw).
 
2012-06-22 11:29:15 PM
Hot scientist and mathematician thread!

de-pata-de-perro.yolol.net
 
2012-06-22 11:51:16 PM

meat0918: Hot scientist and mathematician thread!


Came for Danica McKellar, may come again.


4.bp.blogspot.com

/hotlin....wait, gotta get a tissue..
 
2012-06-23 12:08:23 AM
aleheads.files.wordpress.com
Really, Fark? You disappoint me :/
 
2012-06-23 12:34:30 AM
Oh for fark's sake.
 
zez
2012-06-23 12:39:45 AM
I'm pretty sure the guy playing the male scientist is a model too.

[thisisanoutrage.jpeg]
 
2012-06-23 12:55:24 AM
Women be shoppin isolating the Higgs-Boson.
 
2012-06-23 02:10:17 AM

anwserman: [aleheads.files.wordpress.com image 330x248]
Really, Fark? You disappoint me :/


Doesn't the headline itself already cover that?
 
2012-06-23 03:06:06 AM
lol, I have a friend who is a brilliant tenured space physicist at a major university. She is also a very beautiful woman. When she is in the room, all men look at her and pretty much ignore all the other women in the room, she is that magnetic. If she dressed in short skirts and heals to teach, none of her male students would remember a word she said.
 
2012-06-23 03:13:49 AM
problem: 60% of the college population is now female due to institutionalized sexism in education which causes a shortage of the people who actually build civilization.

solution: do not realign the k-12 system to more male friendly teaching methods to equalize the gender ratio in college. that would be stupid. the real solution is to get women who arent interested in the sciences to major in them.
 
2012-06-23 03:29:25 AM

NotARocketScientist: lol, I have a friend who is a brilliant tenured space physicist at a major university. She is also a very beautiful woman. When she is in the room, all men look at her and pretty much ignore all the other women in the room, she is that magnetic. If she dressed in short skirts and heals to teach, none of her male students would remember a word she said.


Pics or GTFO.
 
2012-06-23 05:21:22 AM

lazyguineapig33: problem: 60% of the college population is now female due to institutionalized sexism in education which causes a shortage of the people who actually build civilization.

solution: do not realign the k-12 system to more male friendly teaching methods to equalize the gender ratio in college. that would be stupid. the real solution is to get women who arent interested in the sciences to major in them.


Pretty much this.
 
2012-06-23 05:25:53 AM

meat0918: Hot scientist and mathematician thread!

[de-pata-de-perro.yolol.net image 490x735]


She's hot and all, but can we get someone who didn't start out as an actress and model, for once? I mean, that was the point of TFA.
 
2012-06-23 06:24:09 AM

lazyguineapig33: problem: 60% of the college population is now female due to institutionalized sexism in education which causes a shortage of the people who actually build civilization.


The people who build civilization are....men?

lazyguineapig33: the real solution is to get women who arent interested in the sciences to major in them.


Or the people who build civilization are hard science and engineering types, but they shouldn't be women?

Why is encouraging women to pursue hard science careers a bad thing? It's not about forcing women into those careers just for the sake of statistical gender equality, but encouraging people not to be constrained by what they've been told is a gender appropriate career.

As far as boys lagging behind in school, I've seen a host of possible explanations. It seems the gap widens as kids get older leading to girls graduating high school at higher rates and going to college at higher rates, but some of that has to do with girls doing better than in years previous not boys doing worse than in years previous.
 
2012-06-23 06:41:07 AM

Baryogenesis: lazyguineapig33: problem: 60% of the college population is now female due to institutionalized sexism in education which causes a shortage of the people who actually build civilization.

The people who build civilization are....men?

lazyguineapig33: the real solution is to get women who arent interested in the sciences to major in them.

Or the people who build civilization are hard science and engineering types, but they shouldn't be women?

Why is encouraging women to pursue hard science careers a bad thing? It's not about forcing women into those careers just for the sake of statistical gender equality, but encouraging people not to be constrained by what they've been told is a gender appropriate career.

As far as boys lagging behind in school, I've seen a host of possible explanations. It seems the gap widens as kids get older leading to girls graduating high school at higher rates and going to college at higher rates, but some of that has to do with girls doing better than in years previous not boys doing worse than in years previous.


Because there are a finite amount of resources in this world and because there are only two genders (for the purpose of this discussion).

The result of this is whenever you spend some of those resources with the goal of increasing one gender; it comes at the cost of another gender. Schools have spent a lot of time and money with the specific goals of increases test scores, graduation rates, and college enrollment of women; who at one point lagged behind men.

And it worked.

But the result of that is that *relative to the average* men perform worse. Because we've focused so much on helping women. Now more women graduate college than men. In our latest recession - men faired significantly worse than women in unemployment numbers.

For decades I've heard people say things like 'Promoting women to do better in school isn't about sexism, it's about equality!' - but there is no outcry from those people to now promote men's success. Instead, they look specifically for statistics that still support their (sexist belief) that women are weaker and need more help than men. More women are college graduates and have jobs - but not in these fields. Let's spend more time and money trying to get women to excel in those fields!

I can't remember ever hearing an outcry about the lack of men in fields that are primarily female. Nobody talks about starting programs to help men get interested in veterinary medicine or pediatrics.

Personally, I believe the only way to achieve true equality is to treat people the same. I'm short. I don't think we should introduce special programs to encourage the success of short people in the NBA. I think we should judge people on their ability and desire to play in the NBA - and sometimes that means you get teams filled with tall people. Math and science are about as gender neutral as humanly possible. Programs that teach math and science are great. Programs designed to help women excel in Math and Science do so at the cost men's ability to excel in Math and Science.
 
2012-06-23 07:07:17 AM
FTFA: Have a boo:

Wha?
 
2012-06-23 07:44:54 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: "How I carry and present myself is important as a teacher and communicator, but neither of those rely upon short skirts and heels."

And that's why I have one of my modeling headshots along with my author bio at the bottom of my article.

Not really doin' a great job of presenting feminists and intelligent women as something other than humorless harpies with this article.


You do know that feminists and intelligent women are mutually exclusive don't you?
 
2012-06-23 07:46:30 AM

Honest Bender: FTFA: Have a boo:

Wha?


My guess is like "peek-a-boo".
 
2012-06-23 07:54:33 AM
Soooo, a commercial trying to crack the stigma of the "nerdy" science-minded girl is a bad thing? Also, author is just as guilty (if not more so) when it comes to using fashion and sex appeal to sell science. Take the still from one of her videos on damselflies for example:
img62.imageshack.us

Hypocrite...
 
2012-06-23 08:07:37 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: This might shock some of the (not only) lesbian critics who think that advertising only presents factual representations of the items that it sells... but NO it doesn't, unless only fashion models eat fast food. So go back to crying about how men are hungry enough to take your job because this advertisement is actually pro-feminist.


Yeah, I came here to give a "What's the big deal?" myself. The point of the ad is to turn school aged girls on to science and show them that they can be feminine and sexy and still choose this as a career if they are interested in doing so. If anything it's a rebellion against a stereotype, that of the nerdy, socially awkward scientist. If they had shown a bunch of dorky girls in duct-taped glasses, that would have been much more offensive in my opinion.
 
2012-06-23 08:21:16 AM

tallen702: Soooo, a commercial trying to crack the stigma of the "nerdy" science-minded girl is a bad thing? Also, author is just as guilty (if not more so) when it comes to using fashion and sex appeal to sell science. Take the still from one of her videos on damselflies for example:
[img62.imageshack.us image 582x531]

Hypocrite...


NO. Because she has actual substance beneath the veneer; something that the ECRI video lacked. You fail and are awarded no points, and may Gord have mercy on your soul.
 
2012-06-23 08:23:59 AM

Tommy Moo: Because People in power are Stupid: This might shock some of the (not only) lesbian critics who think that advertising only presents factual representations of the items that it sells... but NO it doesn't, unless only fashion models eat fast food. So go back to crying about how men are hungry enough to take your job because this advertisement is actually pro-feminist.

Yeah, I came here to give a "What's the big deal?" myself. The point of the ad is to turn school aged girls on to science and show them that they can be feminine and sexy and still choose this as a career if they are interested in doing so. If anything it's a rebellion against a stereotype, that of the nerdy, socially awkward scientist. If they had shown a bunch of dorky girls in duct-taped glasses, that would have been much more offensive in my opinion.


Either attempt wouldn't be effective (glossy girl shots vs. nerdy girl shots). The other 6-min video in the link has a far better chance of attracting girls to science. Because it has ACTUAL SCIENCE.

The big deal is that they wasted money on fluff; if they combined to fluff with substance, then we'd have had something.
 
2012-06-23 08:35:56 AM

mekkab: tallen702: Soooo, a commercial trying to crack the stigma of the "nerdy" science-minded girl is a bad thing? Also, author is just as guilty (if not more so) when it comes to using fashion and sex appeal to sell science. Take the still from one of her videos on damselflies for example:
[img62.imageshack.us image 582x531]

Hypocrite...

NO. Because she has actual substance beneath the veneer; something that the ECRI video lacked. You fail and are awarded no points, and may Gord have mercy on your soul.


Someone obviously has never had any experience in marketing. Also, how much substance do you think you're actually going to get in a 1 minute advert spot.

Oh, and btw, your attempt at being witty is full of more fail than my argument. Stick to your day job, I'm sure the boys in the cubicle next to yours think you're pretty funny, but the rest of the world thinks you're a self-important moron. Have a nice day!
 
2012-06-23 09:52:28 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: "How I carry and present myself is important as a teacher and communicator, but neither of those rely upon short skirts and heels."

And that's why I have one of my modeling headshots along with my author bio at the bottom of my article.

Not really doin' a great job of presenting feminists and intelligent women as something other than humorless harpies with this article.


I think that whole feminist "I can get a jorb based only on my mad skillz!" thing is becoming passe. They are beginning to realize they still have to show some allure to get ahead.
 
2012-06-23 09:53:02 AM
The kind of people attracted by the fluff of the video with the models would not make good scientists, I think. It's a big waste of time.
 
2012-06-23 09:56:43 AM

fusillade762: NotARocketScientist: lol, I have a friend who is a brilliant tenured space physicist at a major university. She is also a very beautiful woman. When she is in the room, all men look at her and pretty much ignore all the other women in the room, she is that magnetic. If she dressed in short skirts and heals to teach, none of her male students would remember a word she said.

Pics or GTFO.


Yeah, I also don't believe that someone whose English is this bad would have a friend like that. Does she really have "heals to teach"? I thought she was a 'space physicist' (whatever that is), not a medicine woman, also run on sentences and random lazy capitalisation make ceiling cat cry.
 
2012-06-23 10:08:55 AM

tallen702: mekkab: tallen702: Soooo, a commercial trying to crack the stigma of the "nerdy" science-minded girl is a bad thing? Also, author is just as guilty (if not more so) when it comes to using fashion and sex appeal to sell science. Take the still from one of her videos on damselflies for example:
[img62.imageshack.us image 582x531]

Hypocrite...

NO. Because she has actual substance beneath the veneer; something that the ECRI video lacked. You fail and are awarded no points, and may Gord have mercy on your soul.

Someone obviously has never had any experience in marketing. Also, how much substance do you think you're actually going to get in a 1 minute advert spot.

Oh, and btw, your attempt at being witty is full of more fail than my argument. Stick to your day job, I'm sure the boys in the cubicle next to yours think you're pretty funny, but the rest of the world thinks you're a self-important moron. Have a nice day!


Holy cats, dude, that's a pretty low attack, don't you think?

First of all, you can get a tremendous amount of substance in one minute. A minute can seem like a very long time when there's enough substance in it. Don't believe me? Put your hand on a hot stove burner. For a full minute. And there are adverts and PSAs with a lot of substance in that time, and half that time. It's only common and typical that they don't; that doesn't make it normal or excusable. It sounds to me like you're betting that no one who's an *actual* expert will call YOU out on your knowledge of marketing. Good luck with that.

Second, wit is very highly subjective, not objectively comparable -- meaning, your assessment of someone else's is entirely a matter of opinion, and it's rationally senseless to compare it to anything else, especially something other than wit. It's like me saying that my horse is funnier than how fast your car can go. I happen to find the vast majority of alleged wit in this society extremely tiresome, but that's only my opinion.

My point is that you've advanced no argument here, just made a fool of yourself yelling empty insults at someone. Don't you want to be better than that?
 
2012-06-23 11:30:24 AM

Fark Me To Tears: ZAZ: Never once in the past 20+ years I've worked in labs did an experiment or procedure
1) care that I was female

She should start experimenting on dogs.

Or bears...


The bears might not be too impressed by her gender.

fc05.deviantart.net
 
2012-06-23 12:16:33 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Baryogenesis: lazyguineapig33: problem: 60% of the college population is now female due to institutionalized sexism in education which causes a shortage of the people who actually build civilization.

The people who build civilization are....men?

lazyguineapig33: the real solution is to get women who arent interested in the sciences to major in them.

Or the people who build civilization are hard science and engineering types, but they shouldn't be women?

Why is encouraging women to pursue hard science careers a bad thing? It's not about forcing women into those careers just for the sake of statistical gender equality, but encouraging people not to be constrained by what they've been told is a gender appropriate career.

As far as boys lagging behind in school, I've seen a host of possible explanations. It seems the gap widens as kids get older leading to girls graduating high school at higher rates and going to college at higher rates, but some of that has to do with girls doing better than in years previous not boys doing worse than in years previous.

Because there are a finite amount of resources in this world and because there are only two genders (for the purpose of this discussion).

The result of this is whenever you spend some of those resources with the goal of increasing one gender; it comes at the cost of another gender. Schools have spent a lot of time and money with the specific goals of increases test scores, graduation rates, and college enrollment of women; who at one point lagged behind men.

And it worked.

But the result of that is that *relative to the average* men perform worse. Because we've focused so much on helping women. Now more women graduate college than men. In our latest recession - men faired significantly worse than women in unemployment numbers.

For decades I've heard people say things like 'Promoting women to do better in school isn't about sexism, it's about equality!' - but there is no outcry from those people to now pr ...


Also, look at the scholarships available.

There are all sorts available that are gender or ethnicity based, except if the applicant is a white man.
 
2012-06-23 12:53:05 PM

Krieghund:
The bears might not be too impressed by her gender.

[fc05.deviantart.net image 469x519]


Thread over.

/it suffered from massive shrinkage
 
2012-06-23 07:29:07 PM

rustypouch: look at the scholarships available.

There are all sorts available that are gender or ethnicity based, except if the applicant is a white man.


The vast majority of scholarships come from private groups, and private groups can make any rules they want. Many accrue to even narrower criteria then you suggest -- specific backgrounds, ethnicities or nationalities, trades, majors, and so on. There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone from creating and offering a scholarship specifically for white men. So why don't they? Perhaps it's because no one but a handful of know-nothing whiners really believes they're needed. Most core scholarships are based strictly on achievement, and are race-blind. But fewer are needs-blind. Scholarships that are awarded partly based on need might be less available to people who, you know, don't need them, or need them less than other equally-qualified contenders.
 
2012-06-23 07:36:51 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Because there are a finite amount of resources in this world and because there are only two genders (for the purpose of this discussion).

The result of this is whenever you spend some of those resources with the goal of increasing one gender; it comes at the cost of another gender. Schools have spent a lot of time and money with the specific goals of increases test scores, graduation rates, and college enrollment of women; who at one point lagged behind men.


Not necessarily. If you spend 5 dollars on boys and 5 dollars on girls then decide girls need more help and it changes to 5 dollars on boys and 6 dollars on girls it hasn't come at the cost of boys. Resources are finite, but it's not always a zero sum game. You can help one group without hurting the other. In fact, that should be the goal for boys who are struggling: help them graduate at higher rates without damaging the progress girls have made.

There are some statistics (which I can dig up if you like) that show *absolute* improvement in test scores in both boys and girls even as girls have improved to a greater degree. Now that's just part of the picture, but it shows that boys aren't doing worse. It's girls who are doing remarkably better.

Fark_Guy_Rob: More women are college graduates and have jobs - but not in these fields. Let's spend more time and money trying to get women to excel in those fields!

I can't remember ever hearing an outcry about the lack of men in fields that are primarily female. Nobody talks about starting programs to help men get interested in veterinary medicine or pediatrics.


Are you for or against programs that get men and women into fields that aren't their traditional fields? I can't tell. You seem upset that folks want to get women interested in science, but also upset they're not doing the same thing to get men into nursing (for example). It shouldn't even be about gender. It should be about people following a career they enjoy and are good at. If women are avoiding science fields because of gender stereotypes that's bad. If men are avoiding care giving fields because of gender stereotypes that's also bad.

Fark_Guy_Rob: Math and science are about as gender neutral as humanly possible. Programs that teach math and science are great. Programs designed to help women excel in Math and Science do so at the cost men's ability to excel in Math and Science.


The subjects are gender neutral, but the human system built up around them aren't. It need not even be overt sexism preventing gender neutrality. Structural sexism is a problem too. Unless you're literally taking money away from co-ed programs to support female only programs, women excelling in these subjects doesn't mean men can't. Plus, you keep failing to account for the biases still present in society that hinder women. It's not a level playing field yet. It may be transitioning that way with more women getting college degrees than men, but it's not there yet.

Simply saying "no special programs" ignores the reality that we don't all start off with equal opportunities. Special programs are in place so that future generations can enjoy something closer to true equality of opportunity. One important point related to our discussion about boys (girls too) falling behind in school is that it's closely tied to race and family income. Special programs for poor families and minority communities are also important.
 
2012-06-23 09:11:29 PM

mekkab:

Either attempt wouldn't be effective (glossy girl shots vs. nerdy girl shots). The other 6-min video in the link has a far better chance of attracting girls to science. Because it has ACTUAL SCIENCE.


Because actual science is blathering to a camera? No.

Why not show someone sitting at their desk reading something and taking notes for 10 minutes because that would appeal to people who would want to do that too... No.

Advertising for a vocation is not only for the people IN THE VOCATION but rather to make it acceptable to others as well. You see, human beings are social animals and seek the approval of their peers. Guess what, sciency nerds are not immune from what others think of them. People need to be seen as successful and if you have math hating friends -then those people will be less inclined to go into a math intensive field.
 
2012-06-23 10:31:27 PM
I'm totally OK with women using their sex appeal to teach science, as long as on the first day, they teach the science of why every guy in the room is unable to take his eyes off the teacher's tits, with emphasis placed on the knowing laughter of all the female students, followed by a thorough lecture on ethics, basic respect for others, and how you might catch more bees with honey, but once the honey's gone the bees will go off in search of greener pastures.

Or, uh, something like that. I was kind of going somewhere with this, but then I remembered that this is Fark, where any attempt at rational discussion of gender politics inevitably ends with a Greek chorus of desperate geeks bitterly declaiming about how it's so HARD to be a man, completely failing to recognize that 1) actual men don't sit around whining about how hard it is to be a man, and 2) the women worth having aren't the ones who can have any guy they want; they're the ones who want *you*.

Oh, never mind, I'll just go and make some sammiches.

/for myself. Tuna melt, I think. Let the predictable and unfunny fish/vagina jokes begin.
 
2012-06-23 10:40:26 PM
Not only that video is patronizing, it show that ad directors are unable to direct anything that doesn't look like a shampoo/make-up/perfume commercial...
 
2012-06-23 10:48:21 PM

gglibertine: I'm totally OK with women using their sex appeal to teach science, as long as on the first day, they teach the science of why every guy in the room is unable to take his eyes off the teacher's tits, with emphasis placed on the knowing laughter of all the female students, followed by a thorough lecture on ethics, basic respect for others, and how you might catch more bees with honey, but once the honey's gone the bees will go off in search of greener pastures.


Your stereotype of male characters is stupid. Lucky for everyone living in reality that you have to use fiction to illustrate your point. Since you are using stock characters for your story why not just use the negative stereotypes of dumb women?

As far as it being "HARD" to be a man -the grass is always greener and that goes for both genders.
 
2012-06-23 11:21:41 PM

Baryogenesis: Fark_Guy_Rob: Because there are a finite amount of resources in this world and because there are only two genders (for the purpose of this discussion).

The result of this is whenever you spend some of those resources with the goal of increasing one gender; it comes at the cost of another gender. Schools have spent a lot of time and money with the specific goals of increases test scores, graduation rates, and college enrollment of women; who at one point lagged behind men.

Not necessarily. If you spend 5 dollars on boys and 5 dollars on girls then decide girls need more help and it changes to 5 dollars on boys and 6 dollars on girls it hasn't come at the cost of boys. Resources are finite, but it's not always a zero sum game. You can help one group without hurting the other. In fact, that should be the goal for boys who are struggling: help them graduate at higher rates without damaging the progress girls have made.


thats the problem. the progress girls have made has come at the expense of boys. boys a girls brains develope differently and different sections of the brain develope at different times. for example, females develop fine motor skills at around age 5 or 6 but boys develope that later. so if you try to teach kindergarden classes how to write, some boys physically are unable to do it. conversely, boys develop spatial perception before girls do so they can learn subjects like geometry before girls do. take a guess at what oute schools have taken? furthermore, many schools have eliminated recess and sports and rough and tumble play. this hurts boys because they way that boys make friends is very different than the way girls do. for boys, the activity is central to the relationship and so when the activity is gone the friendship will weaken. this hurts boys ability to make social networks. specific teaching methods have also hurts boys like focusing on fiction in reading instead of nonfiction or using the language method instead of the phonics method to learn to read.

these are only 4 examples, and if you are interested there are many more examples in this book.

i1172.photobucket.com

and this book

i1172.photobucket.com

Baryogenesis: Are you for or against programs that get men and women into fields that aren't their traditional fields? I can't tell. You seem upset that folks want to get women interested in science, but also upset they're not doing the same thing to get men into nursing (for example). It shouldn't even be about gender. It should be about people following a career they enjoy and are good at.


i am not against women going into science. what i am against is giving women special preference to enter these fields. i know a girl who was hired as an intern at boeing as a FRESHMAN through a society of women engineers meeting. i also know men who are alot smarter and harder working than her who have applied for YEARS to boeing and didnt get an internship.

The biggest thing that i hate about the whole thing is the idea that women still need help when they very clearly do not. The whole situation is kinda like offering a tax cut to mitt romeny who paid 13% and not offering a tax cut to middle class people who pay 20%. its dumb.

finally i am going to drop this little tidbit. Link the implications a immense. and then im going to drop this tidbit too. Link
 
2012-06-24 09:03:41 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I can't remember ever hearing an outcry about the lack of men in fields that are primarily female. Nobody talks about starting programs to help men get interested in veterinary medicine or pediatrics.


True, but that's because med schools and vet schools aren't having any trouble keeping their classes full. Engineering schools are, so they're reaching out to a new audience.

Not a conspiracy IMO, just economics.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report