3 ms·

It depends upon why there is a low ratio. For example, if less men are being grade school teachers due to sexist double standards on judgments of teacher/stude

It depends upon why there is a low ratio. For example, if less men are being grade school teachers due to sexist double standards on judgments of teacher/student interactions, then that is an issue that needs to be fixed. The low ratio is a symptom, not the problem itself, but it helps indicate a problem that needs to be fixed. My issue is that sometimes instead of fixing the underlying problem(s), some people want to apply a patch that ends up not helping (or maybe making things worse).

Kenji 11y ago
I don't think a low ration of women indicates a problem that needs to be fixed. I think this is a complete fallacy. I'd like to hear proof of why that is, then we can start fixing it.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Maybe not a complete fallacy. Some likely reasons: men hire more men. Women are hired but pushed out by stress. Women don't get promoted (or tenure or whatever) so leave. Women have heard its a terrible place for women and don't apply. All of these things should be fixed, if applicable. Because they are patently unfair to half the talented pool of candidates. Any school that pretends to understand mathematics would understand that puts the school at a disadvantage.
  - Kenji 11y ago
    >Maybe not a complete fallacy. Maybe it isn't. But we should approach this maturely. Often, there is no evidence for systemic discrimination and the stories are anecdotal and vague feelings of oppression. For example, it is often said that women are pushed out of CS courses because they are hostile environments to women, but when I attend uni I see that everything is completely technical and gender just doesn't play a role. You sit in the same lectures, do the same exercises, the same exams. Absolutely fair. When I ask women why they don't study CS, pretty much nobody says "Well, I tried uni but I was discriminated against", no, they say "Oh. It just doesn't interest me." The biggest issue, however, is when force enters the picture. Women quotas, affirmative actions, and the like. This is the true face of discrimination, and what an ugly face it is. I am in strict opposition of such actions because they distort the market and harm the freedom of choice and the development of talents.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      If those experiences were universal, then what a wonderful world. If they are not, then something should be done. It seems to be a harmful approach, to campaign against attempts to restore fairness and equity, because "I don't see the problem"
      - Kenji 11y ago
        I don't "campaign against attempts to restore fairness". I don't care about subjective experiences of people. I doubt that there is actually systemic discrimination or unfairness and demand proof for such a thing. And, I doubt the measures that are taken to fight this supposed unfairness are helpful, in fact, those measures themselves are a gross discrimination. I think I clearly made my point in my previous messages. I am all for equal opportunity. That is _precisely_ why I am against affirmative action.

Kenji 11y ago

I don't think a low ration of women indicates a problem that needs to be fixed. I think this is a complete fallacy. I'd like to hear proof of why that is, then we can start fixing it.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Maybe not a complete fallacy. Some likely reasons: men hire more men. Women are hired but pushed out by stress. Women don't get promoted (or tenure or whatever) so leave. Women have heard its a terrible place for women and don't apply. All of these things should be fixed, if applicable. Because they are patently unfair to half the talented pool of candidates. Any school that pretends to understand mathematics would understand that puts the school at a disadvantage.
- Kenji 11y ago
  >Maybe not a complete fallacy. Maybe it isn't. But we should approach this maturely. Often, there is no evidence for systemic discrimination and the stories are anecdotal and vague feelings of oppression. For example, it is often said that women are pushed out of CS courses because they are hostile environments to women, but when I attend uni I see that everything is completely technical and gender just doesn't play a role. You sit in the same lectures, do the same exercises, the same exams. Absolutely fair. When I ask women why they don't study CS, pretty much nobody says "Well, I tried uni but I was discriminated against", no, they say "Oh. It just doesn't interest me." The biggest issue, however, is when force enters the picture. Women quotas, affirmative actions, and the like. This is the true face of discrimination, and what an ugly face it is. I am in strict opposition of such actions because they distort the market and harm the freedom of choice and the development of talents.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    If those experiences were universal, then what a wonderful world. If they are not, then something should be done. It seems to be a harmful approach, to campaign against attempts to restore fairness and equity, because "I don't see the problem"
    - Kenji 11y ago
      I don't "campaign against attempts to restore fairness". I don't care about subjective experiences of people. I doubt that there is actually systemic discrimination or unfairness and demand proof for such a thing. And, I doubt the measures that are taken to fight this supposed unfairness are helpful, in fact, those measures themselves are a gross discrimination. I think I clearly made my point in my previous messages. I am all for equal opportunity. That is _precisely_ why I am against affirmative action.