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.

(Popular Science)   How to fix institutionally sexist science. What's wrong with being sexy?   (popsci.com) divider line 115
    More: Interesting, Fields of science, City University of New York, Hunter College, technology policy, gender studies, Stanford School of Medicine, petri dishes, research subject  
•       •       •

2243 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Mar 2013 at 12:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 10:57:50 AM
In before "the wage gap is due to women taking time off to have kids, not sexism," with evidence that pre-kid starting salaries also show the gap.
 
2013-03-08 12:13:10 PM
Bludgeon males into thinking they can't do anything, and then we'll have equality?
 
2013-03-08 12:14:18 PM
This topic again?  *sigh*

\female physicist
 
2013-03-08 12:15:25 PM
Step 1: don't be a sexist asshole.
 
2013-03-08 12:17:36 PM
www.thedetroitbureau.com
 
2013-03-08 12:19:04 PM

FizixJunkee: This topic again?  *sigh*

\female physicist


Wanna see my linear particle accelerator? Here, let me start it up for you...
 
2013-03-08 12:19:25 PM
Big bang theory just covered this with a good idea:

Have peer review for manuscripts and grants be submitted with first initials rather than first names.

Or, people should peer review properly: read and judge the submission first, then look at the name.
 
2013-03-08 12:19:56 PM
I can't find any screen caps yet from last night's BIG BANG THEORY, but they would be very appropriate
here.
 
2013-03-08 12:21:53 PM
I know this is the wrong place to say this, but that is one good-looking astronaut.

Seriously though, it's interesting to see how the cumulative impact of a thousand small slights can build up to serious inequalities. To think about it from an anarcho-eco-feminist point of view, think of the advances in science we could have if we supported women like we supported men: sure, it's nice to have equality, but the benefits in human progress that come from such an investment in women, and hence science, are surely profitable.
 
2013-03-08 12:22:40 PM
need a new rule of thumb
 
2013-03-08 12:23:31 PM

legion_of_doo: Bludgeon males into thinking they can't do anything, and then we'll have equality?


Seems the progressive M.O.   Apparently there are people (in positions of power) which think that some people are "more equal" than other people.
 
2013-03-08 12:25:58 PM
I know it can't work directly in private industry, but I do like the simple equality of my Government job's pay scale. All that changes your pay is number of years worked and your education level. Sure, it's far from perfect, disadvantages newcomers to a degree, and is a bit blind in assuming degrees equal better workers, but at least there is no built-in ability to pay differently based on race, gender, appearance, etc (although I'm sure those things still bias the hiring process).
 
2013-03-08 12:26:33 PM

Theaetetus: In before "the wage gap is due to women taking time off to have kids, not sexism," with evidence that pre-kid starting salaries also show the gap.


It's preemptive. If they haven't had a kid yet, that means even more time off for maternity leave. Add that to the one day a week they have to leave work because something something kids... That's a lot of time.
 
2013-03-08 12:28:23 PM

Girl Pants: I know it can't work directly in private industry, but I do like the simple equality of my Government job's pay scale. All that changes your pay is number of years worked and your education level. Sure, it's far from perfect, disadvantages newcomers to a degree, and is a bit blind in assuming degrees equal better workers, but at least there is no built-in ability to pay differently based on race, gender, appearance, etc (although I'm sure those things still bias the hiring process).


I worked for the government and generally agree with this sentiment.  But I hate the red tape that comes with fear that the IG office will pounce on you for anything.
 
2013-03-08 12:30:41 PM
Here's the unfortunate truth, though. Academics and high-profile engineering are almost pure meritocracies, and the people who get to the top do so by devoting a nearly-insane amount of time and effort to their profession.

If you take time off for anything, whether it's child rearing or something else, you're going to fall behind the curve, and it's going to take time for you to catch up. Then you're competing against everyone else for the same funding and opportunities, and you're going to have a big gap in your history that, while not looking bad, doesn't make you look good. You're going to be comparatively behind your colleagues in experience and breadth that they have because they didn't take time off.

Yes, it's unfair, and it's particularly unfair if you really want to have kids and want to take a lot of time off for them (as many women do). But we're not talking about finding a job or getting promoted, we're talking about awarding mult-million dollar grants and projects. We're talking about designing bridges and airplanes. Not only that, but there is intense demand for all this funding, so it's likely not just you versus someone else, but it's you versus a hundred other applicants. Frankly, nobody cares about diversity when the stakes are this high.

That's the reality of the situation. If you want more diversity in science you either need to indoctrinate women so they don't feel bad about not having kids, or you need to increase science funding so those people feel like they have a reasonable chance at having a career and a family.
 
2013-03-08 12:31:42 PM
I came for the low hanging fruit...leaving satisfied.
 
2013-03-08 12:33:06 PM
At one of my previous jobs, part time and at a supermarket. Males were at the disadvantage. I remember working my butt off and seeing a lot of girls coming in and starting work after me and getting promoted 10 times faster then I did. Worked there 10 years and never even made Cashier. saw a young woman come in and work 5 months and made cashier then got promoted a second time and was an office cashier within 18 months. Always thought it was BS but never truely cared cause I knew it was a temp job.
 
2013-03-08 12:33:53 PM
Non-events are about not being seen, heard, supported, encouraged, taken into account, validated, invited, included, welcomed, greeted or simply asked along.

I taught myself how to write software, went to college, got my qualifications. Other than my parents, pretty much no-one blew me for doing so.

For one, organizers should seek out women in relevant fields to speak at conferences - and keep looking if the first woman they ask says no.

No. Get the best speakers on the subjects, male or female.

I propose that universities modify their tenure-clock extension rules to cover children born at any stage in a career. So even if people already have children when starting out as assistant professors, they should be offered an additional year per child (up to two children, perhaps) to obtain tenure.

So, you choose to take time off to have children, and as a result, your experience changing nappies and breastfeeding your kids should get considered like someone's work experience? How about we give someone who goes backpacking for a year the same.

Striving for equality should be a core aspect of being a scientist.

Which I agree with.

So, out of the 4 things that they think should be done, 3 are not about institutional sexism, but replacing a level playing field with one in favour of women.
 
2013-03-08 12:34:30 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: FizixJunkee: This topic again?  *sigh*

\female physicist

Wanna see my linear particle accelerator? Here, let me start it up for you...


*groan*

Hey baby.  I can feel the heat comin' off ya.  Reaction gettin out of control?  Pile gettin hot?  Maybe you need me to insert... a control rod.
 
2013-03-08 12:34:37 PM
Nickninja:

Have peer review for manuscripts and grants be submitted with first initials rather than first names.

I agree with this.  Just use a unique author identification number; no names on submissions.
 
2013-03-08 12:37:27 PM

Fubini: Here's the unfortunate truth, though. Academics and high-profile engineering are almost pure meritocracies, and the people who get to the top do so by devoting a nearly-insane amount of time and effort to their profession.

If you take time off for anything, whether it's child rearing or something else, you're going to fall behind the curve, and it's going to take time for you to catch up. Then you're competing against everyone else for the same funding and opportunities, and you're going to have a big gap in your history that, while not looking bad, doesn't make you look good. You're going to be comparatively behind your colleagues in experience and breadth that they have because they didn't take time off.


What someone who didn't read the initial post may look like.
 
2013-03-08 12:38:21 PM

abhorrent1: Theaetetus:

It's preemptive. If they haven't had a kid yet, that means even more time off for maternity leave. Add that to the one day a week they have to leave work because something something kids... That's a lot of time.


You don't know a lot of female scientists, I presume.  The women I know work very hard at their jobs, and  always put in full-time hours.  Even if they "leave early" one day a week---and how many professors of either gender don't?  Heck, my husband barely makes it to campus once a week during the semesters he's not teaching----they make it up by working later in the evenings, on weekends, etc.
 
2013-03-08 12:41:22 PM

FizixJunkee: abhorrent1: Theaetetus:

It's preemptive. If they haven't had a kid yet, that means even more time off for maternity leave. Add that to the one day a week they have to leave work because something something kids... That's a lot of time.

You don't know a lot of female scientists, I presume.  The women I know work very hard at their jobs, and  always put in full-time hours.  Even if they "leave early" one day a week---and how many professors of either gender don't?  Heck, my husband barely makes it to campus once a week during the semesters he's not teaching----they make it up by working later in the evenings, on weekends, etc.


imgs.xkcd.com

Replace "suck at math" with "go home early a lot"
 
2013-03-08 12:41:50 PM

Nickninja: Big bang theory just covered this with a good idea:

Have peer review for manuscripts and grants be submitted with first initials rather than first names.

Or, people should peer review properly: read and judge the submission first, then look at the name.



That won't happen, ever.  A lot of scientific communities are very cliquish and known to be especially harsh on people that aren't part of the in-group during the peer review process.
 
2013-03-08 12:43:55 PM

Wook: legion_of_doo: Bludgeon males into thinking they can't do anything, and then we'll have equality?

Seems the progressive M.O.   Apparently there are people (in positions of power) which think that some people are "more equal" than other people.


For a long time some people haven't had many rights - one extreme.  The pendulum is swinging the other extreme right now.  You can't correct, say, two hundred years' worth of inequality in a few decades, nor can you correct the overbalance of six decades in a year.  It will balance out, things will become equal.  Give it time.

Unless people think that others not having the same advantages is the normal state, then any movement of the pendulum will be seen as inequality and favoritism.
 
2013-03-08 12:50:26 PM

IrateShadow: Nickninja: Big bang theory just covered this with a good idea:

Have peer review for manuscripts and grants be submitted with first initials rather than first names.

Or, people should peer review properly: read and judge the submission first, then look at the name.


That won't happen, ever.  A lot of scientific communities are very cliquish and known to be especially harsh on people that aren't part of the in-group during the peer review process.


Believe me, I know.  But some publishers are recognizing this as a problem and are starting to look into ways of fixing it.  I got a survey from Elsevier about it a little while back.
 
2013-03-08 12:55:42 PM

Theaetetus: Fubini: Here's the unfortunate truth, though. Academics and high-profile engineering are almost pure meritocracies, and the people who get to the top do so by devoting a nearly-insane amount of time and effort to their profession.

If you take time off for anything, whether it's child rearing or something else, you're going to fall behind the curve, and it's going to take time for you to catch up. Then you're competing against everyone else for the same funding and opportunities, and you're going to have a big gap in your history that, while not looking bad, doesn't make you look good. You're going to be comparatively behind your colleagues in experience and breadth that they have because they didn't take time off.

What someone who didn't read the initial post may look like.


You apparently didn't read TFA.  It isn't talking about wage differences, it's talking about representation, which is a different kind of discrimination than wage discrimination. Representation discrimination occurs for different reasons than wage discrimination, and the distinction is important. Surely they're coupled, but they're not the same.

I work with PhDs every day, and a lot of these women don't have definite plans for having kids, primarily because of the workload imposed by their jobs. The female graduate students don't plan on having kids at least until after grad school (rough age in my field: 28-30), and the ones that want really high-profile academic positions don't plan on having kids until after tenure (rough age in my field: 34-36 at the earliest).

If you really want to have a *normal* life and have kids when all your friends are having kids and when society thinks you should have kids, really high impact science and engineering is probably not going to work out for you, for all the reasons I listed above.
 
2013-03-08 12:57:11 PM
Do these equations make me look fat?
 
2013-03-08 12:57:39 PM

Fubini: I work with PhDs every day, and a lot of these women don't have definite plans for having kids, primarily because of the workload imposed by their jobs. The female graduate students don't plan on having kids at least until after grad school (rough age in my field: 28-30), and the ones that want really high-profile academic positions don't plan on having kids until after tenure (rough age in my field: 34-36 at the earliest).


Oh, and don't forget that most of these women aren't married and don't see themselves as getting married until after graduate school, so despite their ideas of having kids then, they realistically aren't going to do it for a year or two after marriage. That or they're going to have to pursue a non-traditional family, which has it's own problems in our society.
 
2013-03-08 01:02:13 PM

Fubini: Theaetetus: Fubini: Here's the unfortunate truth, though. Academics and high-profile engineering are almost pure meritocracies, and the people who get to the top do so by devoting a nearly-insane amount of time and effort to their profession.

If you take time off for anything, whether it's child rearing or something else, you're going to fall behind the curve, and it's going to take time for you to catch up. Then you're competing against everyone else for the same funding and opportunities, and you're going to have a big gap in your history that, while not looking bad, doesn't make you look good. You're going to be comparatively behind your colleagues in experience and breadth that they have because they didn't take time off.

What someone who didn't read the initial post may look like.

You apparently didn't read TFA.  It isn't talking about wage differences, it's talking about representation, which is a different kind of discrimination than wage discrimination. Representation discrimination occurs for different reasons than wage discrimination, and the distinction is important. Surely they're coupled, but they're not the same.


You apparently didn't read TFA.
From TFA:
According to the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers experience a smaller wage gap in relation to their male colleagues than women in non-STEM fields.
On the bright side, if you're a female computer and information scientist under 29, your median annual salary will only fall a $1,000 short of your male colleagues' -- unless you're comparing master's degrees holders, in which case the gap widens to $9,000 a year.


It's okay, Fubini. Reading is hard.

I work with PhDs every day, and a lot of these women don't have definite plans for having kids, primarily because of the workload imposed by their jobs. The female graduate students don't plan on having kids at least until after grad school (rough age in my field: 28-30), and the ones that want really high-profile academic positions don't plan on having kids until after tenure (rough age in my field: 34-36 at the earliest).

And yet, someone in this very thread said:
If you take time off for anything, whether it's child rearing or something else, you're going to fall behind the curve, and it's going to take time for you to catch up. Then you're competing against everyone else for the same funding and opportunities, and you're going to have a big gap in your history that, while not looking bad, doesn't make you look good. You're going to be comparatively behind your colleagues in experience and breadth that they have because they didn't take time off.

According to your experience, there should be no gap visible before roughly ages 28-30. Eppur si muove.
 
2013-03-08 01:04:23 PM

Theaetetus: Fubini: Here's the unfortunate truth, though. Academics and high-profile engineering are almost pure meritocracies, and the people who get to the top do so by devoting a nearly-insane amount of time and effort to their profession.

If you take time off for anything, whether it's child rearing or something else, you're going to fall behind the curve, and it's going to take time for you to catch up. Then you're competing against everyone else for the same funding and opportunities, and you're going to have a big gap in your history that, while not looking bad, doesn't make you look good. You're going to be comparatively behind your colleagues in experience and breadth that they have because they didn't take time off.

What someone who didn't read the initial post may look like.


Or someone smart enough to give two shiats what you think.
 
2013-03-08 01:06:56 PM

MyRandomName: Theaetetus: Fubini: Here's the unfortunate truth, though. Academics and high-profile engineering are almost pure meritocracies, and the people who get to the top do so by devoting a nearly-insane amount of time and effort to their profession.

If you take time off for anything, whether it's child rearing or something else, you're going to fall behind the curve, and it's going to take time for you to catch up. Then you're competing against everyone else for the same funding and opportunities, and you're going to have a big gap in your history that, while not looking bad, doesn't make you look good. You're going to be comparatively behind your colleagues in experience and breadth that they have because they didn't take time off.

What someone who didn't read the initial post may look like.

Or someone smart enough to give two shiats what you think.


Thanks!

/I think you meant "not give two shiats," retard
 
2013-03-08 01:10:54 PM

farkeruk: So, you choose to take time off to have children, and as a result, your experience changing nappies and breastfeeding your kids should get considered like someone's work experience?


Tenure clock extension isn't counted as work experience.  It means that if you take a year off for having a child, that year doesn't count either for or against you.  You go up for tenure a year late and the "missing year" isn't counted.
 
2013-03-08 01:26:21 PM
I'm still waiting for the advocates to break down gender barriers for women in the fields of waste collection, janitorial...ism, taxi cab driving, coal mining, construction, semi truck driving, chauffeuring, lumberjacking, oil rig drilling, plumbing, and so on...

*cricket noises*

No, yeah I'm sure society will work on getting women into these fields just as soon as we're done giving women special treatment to get into all of the lucrative, high profile, high salary careers....THEN they'll start banging down the door to the janitor's closet, or begging to be able drive a cab 70 hours a week for barely any money.

There is, perhaps, one real example of sexism in the sciences, and the advocates are milking it for all it's worth:  Women's papers are less likely to be published than men's unless the names are anonymous.  Of course, calling it sexism is a bit presumptive without actually understanding the real reasons why this is done.  It operates on the assumption that men will try and put women down, just because they want to dominate them in all aspects of life, if given the chance.  Which really is nothing more than an assumption that a lot of people accept, but no one bothers to actually prove to be true, or even think critically about.

I'm not saying it isn't sexism, I'm just saying that we jumped to the conclusion that it was, based on the unscientific presumption of patriarchy.

I'm a former scientist who traded into something more akin to engineering (computer programming), and so I can understand why this sort of thing gets under a lot of guy's skin.  I do hear constantly about how we need more women computer programmers, as if it's a given that this is true.

The sacrifices that men make, and have been making, in these "male dominated" fields has been completely invisible.  When a scientist works 40+ a week, then comes home and has no time for his family because he brings his work home with him in the form of research or writing, and specifically has to take himself away from the love of his family just to show that he loves them (by bringing home as much money as possible), no one notices.  If they do notice, they blame him for not being there for his family.  The more society views him as powerful, the less power he feels like he has over his personal life.

Then women try and break into the field and they say, "Well, I'm going to want to spend more time with my family, so if you could just be a dear and let me be away from the job longer than my counterparts and yet still have the same advantages as them, then I'd really appreciate that."  Perhaps without consciously knowing why, guys are left there scratching their heads going, "Why didn't anyone take pity on my when I sacrificed to make it in this field?  Why was I actually blamed for not being there enough for my family when my career demanded it?"

And then as this is happening we turn around and blame those same men for having all of the power (patriarchy) and giving none of it to women, despite the fact that the moment women recognize a concern for the way that their career affects their personal life we all jump up and go, "Hey!  We need to do something to fix this!"  And finally when women try and get to be a part of the "power" that men have "enjoyed" for so long, they still try to get it without any of the drawbacks that have actually made men powerless.  Rather curious, it is.

Sounds kind of backwards to me, but I guess that's the power of ideology, isn't it?  And I imagine there are a lot of women who have had, or will have, their feathers ruffled by this too.  Women who have succeeded in these career fields despite having to deal with the drawbacks, women who discovered that in order to get power they actually had to lose power, but followed through anyway.  Sucks to find out that they struggled for nothing, and they could have just waited until society came to the damsel's rescue.
 
2013-03-08 01:34:43 PM
1. Hire more broads
2. Make labs have more pink and frills
3. Maybe also investigate that blue liquid used in maxipad commercials
4. Replace bunsen burners with easy bake ovens
5. Malibu particle physicist comes with new hat
 
2013-03-08 01:34:59 PM

FizixJunkee: This topic again?  *sigh*

\female physicist


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 01:45:14 PM
What's wrong with being sexy? I ask myself this all the time.
 
2013-03-08 01:50:49 PM

Nurglitch: I know this is the wrong place to say this, but that is one good-looking astronaut.

Seriously though, it's interesting to see how the cumulative impact of a thousand small slights can build up to serious inequalities. To think about it from an anarcho-eco-feminist point of view, think of the advances in science we could have if we supported women like we supported men: sure, it's nice to have equality, but the benefits in human progress that come from such an investment in women, and hence science, are surely profitable.


Not wasting half your resources is anarcoecofeminism? I guess I just learned something.

I got my first look at this firsthand this year. Wife and I applied for the same job with the same experience except she has a Master's and I only have a BS. We both got hired but they rejected her demand for $15/hr and only gave her $14.50. Me? I was offered $17.50/hr before I could even ask. These are identical ESL teaching jobs and we both just came out of identical ESL jobs.
 
2013-03-08 01:52:59 PM

Duck_of_Doom: Wook: legion_of_doo: Bludgeon males into thinking they can't do anything, and then we'll have equality?

Seems the progressive M.O.   Apparently there are people (in positions of power) which think that some people are "more equal" than other people.

For a long time some people haven't had many rights - one extreme.  The pendulum is swinging the other extreme right now.  You can't correct, say, two hundred years' worth of inequality in a few decades, nor can you correct the overbalance of six decades in a year.  It will balance out, things will become equal.  Give it time.

Unless people think that others not having the same advantages is the normal state, then any movement of the pendulum will be seen as inequality and favoritism.


Seems simple to just stop the pendulum dead center.  Laws and regulations designed to give one group "more equality" over another is intentional and therefore can be stopped.  Granted, the politicians most benefiting from segregating voters will lose their voting blocks....
 
2013-03-08 01:55:30 PM
Maybe that's just their excuse for being incompetent...
 
2013-03-08 01:55:36 PM
That's gonna be a tough one considering it has been shown that women in science are sexist in their hiring practices and favor men over women.
 
2013-03-08 01:56:17 PM
http://femalesoftwareeng.tumblr.com

I enjoy this, though I'm neither a woman or an engineer.
 
2013-03-08 01:58:49 PM

Parthenogenetic: [imgs.xkcd.com image 410x211]

Replace "suck at math" with "go home early a lot"


This.

Taking days off, not rising to meet their challenges, being non-aggressive, and not being good at their profession are qualities shared equally by men and women.  The only difference is that when men do it, it's viewed as a strike against the individual man, but when a woman does it, it's seen as an inherent quality of all women.  Therefore it just seems like women do it more, because when it does happen, your biases are telling you, "Oh, of course, what else would you expect from them?", even if that particular individual has never done it before.  Society still generally views men as individuals and women as a homogenous group (this is why the Smurfette Principle exists in media.  You need many male characters to represent all the facets of manhood, but you only need one female character to represent all of womanhood).
 
2013-03-08 02:07:44 PM

Fast Moon: The only difference is that when men do it, it's viewed as a strike against the individual man, but when a woman does it, it's seen as an inherent quality of all women.


Yeah, I would add to that that "it's seen [by men] as an inherent quality". I wouldn't be surprised if the genders were reversed  women were more likely to assign individual qualities to all men as well.  Probably just a human thing in general. If you F up and I am in the same cohort as you (gender, race, religion, nationality, whatever), I think to myself "I am not like them so it must be an individual problem, not a cohort problem", whereas if they are NOT in that same cohort as you you can think "well they're all like that".

Anyway the comments section of TFA annoyed me. Pretty much underscores the point when 3/4 of the comments involve some variation of "bloo bloo", "wah wah whine", or "widdle" in them, and I'd venture a guess there weren't any female commentors. Way to make yourselves sound like reasoned critical thinkers, while stopping short of sticking "sammich" in there.

/always liked that XKCD, knew a ton of guys with that attitude when I was studying CS and U of I
//then they wondered why their female lab partners didn't fawn over them when they would make "hilarious" comments about that time of the month
 
2013-03-08 02:07:59 PM
Listen toots, I'm sorry if you thought this was going to be something different but when Stephen farking Hawking programs his robot voice to tell you to suck it you better farking get to sucking!
 
2013-03-08 02:10:30 PM
F*ck this article. I'm a scientist and I can tell you from the inside people are constantly tripping over each other trying to throw opportunities at female applicants. The academic departments I've worked in have hired morons for the sake of padding the gender balance closer to 50:50.

Take a look at this stupid line from the article:

"Despite the fact that almost half the doctorates in science engineering the U.S. and Europe go to women, only about a fifth of full professors are female."

Have you heard of tenure? You can't just look at graduation data today and say "How come most professors aren't women? Scientists are evil sexists!" Most professors are in their 60s or even 70s. 30 years ago more than 90% of STEM PhDs were going to men. Those are the people that are still holding onto their jobs. Relax and wait for them to die off. New hire rates are very comparable to the gender breakdown of graduation rates.
 
2013-03-08 02:14:18 PM
i1.kym-cdn.com

The problem isn't gender-bias. The problem is that Marxism isn't viable in the long term.
 
2013-03-08 02:16:39 PM
Another gem:

"I propose that universities modify their tenure-clock extension rules to cover children born at any stage in a career. So even if people already have children when starting out as assistant professors, they should be offered an additional year per child (up to two children, perhaps) to obtain tenure."

This already happens. This has been the policy at most top 50 universities for years.

Look, I know people don't like to talk about it, but women and men are different. Men are not smarter than women on average, but they are more spread out. They have a higher standard deviation for IQ. This means that most genius savants are men. Also, most complete morons are men. This isn't up for debate; it's a demonstrated fact. We hire college professors from the top 2% of intellectuals. It is perfectly natural that there should be more men among them. In spite of this, efforts to shoehorn not equal opportunity, but equal resulting employment to women have in fact been ironing the levels toward 50:50 with a heavy hand. And yes, they do this by lowering the standards. You do from time to time meet an incredibly gifted woman, but when people are hiring handfuls of mediocre women in order to meet affirmative action quotas, it's just going to be the case that women will, on average, be cited less often than the men, and be invited to be a keynote conference speaker less often.
 
2013-03-08 02:17:55 PM

Tommy Moo: New hire rates are very comparable to the gender breakdown of graduation rates.


But can you explain the gender gap in starting salaries offered to those new hires?
 
2013-03-08 02:19:01 PM

Tommy Moo: This isn't up for debate; it's a demonstrated fact.


But what shows that your premise - that IQ tests accurately measure what you claim - is also demonstrated fact?
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report