5 ms·
Fascinating results, I would only caution people before taking this article's results to apply to "all" women. IME, approximately 10% of women desire employmen
by t2015_08_25 11y ago
Fascinating results, I would only caution people before taking this article's results to apply to "all" women. IME, approximately 10% of women desire employment success way more than the others.
- justaman 11y agoWomen can be opinionated, especially feminists. I'm going to avoid ever bringing this up with one.
- danharaj 11y agoHow rational of you. After all, nothing is more unpleasant than a woman rejecting one's opinion.
- hoopd 11y agoOh is that what happened to Tim Hunt?
- civilian 11y agoAnd here's a reference for hoopd's comment: https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-hunt-the-real-story https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-... edit// okay, here's another article that dives into the nuance and doesn't just try to plaster Tim Hunt. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-timothy-hunt-witch-hunt/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-timothy-hunt...
- danharaj 11y agoreason.com follows the same naming convention as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
- Karunamon 11y agoAttacking the source rather than the content is usually the mark of a poor debating position. If the content is good, the source doesn't matter. If the content is bad, the source's badness will be self-evident.
- danharaj 11y agoA debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.
- Karunamon 11y agoThat's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.
- aidenn0 11y agoIt's actually completely compatible with logic: Source X claims Y. I know very little about Y. I know a fair amount about X, and what I know indicates that X is an unreliable source. Therefore, I will not significantly alter my beliefs about Y until a more reliable source than X comes around.
- pkinsky 11y agoFortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.
- t2015_08_25 11y agoSo what on Earth is objectionable in my comment? I speak from a moderate viewpoint, to take the study seriously, but not apply it blindly, apply my own small amount of experience, and get downvoted to -4? Did this offend anyone? Please explain how. Otherwise I would perceive the downvotes to be the work of trolls.
- buckbova 11y agoMight be this: > IME, approximately 10% . . . How is this substantive?
- t2015_08_25 11y agoAh you're right. Thanks. That was driving me crazy. I should have learned by reading substantive comments found elsewhere. This one below, for example, struck me as exceptionally substantive and now I can see why it hasn't been voted below zero: "I don't want to show up to work sweaty. And I want the utility of a vehicle if my plans change. So I'll drive regardless."
- buckbova 11y agoI didn't downvote you. You asked. Don't be so worried about internet points. BTW, that comment netted several magical internet points for whatever reason.