3 ms·
>> "women are inferior" dressed up in a dinner jacket so it fits in with polite company No, it's not even close to the same. That an individual is less likely
by jasonx1e 9y ago
>> "women are inferior" dressed up in a dinner jacket so it fits in with polite company
No, it's not even close to the same.
That an individual is less likely to choose a career doesn't mean that individual inherently is bad at it.
You keep trying to imply that I think less of women. I don't. I'm happy to acknowledge there are plenty of women who are much better than me at tech and plenty that have helped me out. Just because there happen to be less doesn't mean they are inherently worse.
And you could do well leaving out ad hominems. I have been respectful throughout this discussion, while you accuse me of sexism every other line. Most people aren't as impatient as I am when called a sexist as many times as you have. Do you see why conservatives avoid these discussions now?
Odds are I've done more to bridge the gap than you have - I have been a TA for a high school AP Physics MOOC and I am a volunteer at the Lawrence Hall of Science. Do you spend your weekends tutoring young girls and getting them to pursue science?
>> This is just shockingly ignorant.
As someone who had at least 15 girls in my AP Computer Science class in high school, no, it's not. In fact, you can google the requirements needed for taking an AP exam: find a high school willing to let you take it (usually the high school you attend), and pay the $100 fee. That's it.
>> Plenty of women in tech have stories that bely this.
Sure there are plenty of successful women in tech. No one's making the claim that all women aren't interested, and it's never even been mentioned that women are worse at tech.
They just happen in smaller numbers compared to men.
>> Plenty of research refutes it.
93% of occupational deaths are men, as I have mentioned 2 posts ago.
Why can't more women be truck drivers, police detectives, nuclear reactor facilitators, logistics workers, mechanics, or electricians? These jobs all happen to be high 5 figures and many are 6 figures.
It turns out, it has nothing to do with tech being sexist, and all to do with women on average being less likely to chase riskier careers in favor of more stable careers at the expense of a lower salary.[1]
>> At least do yourself the service of understanding why before you post the same tired and discredited arguments in opposition to this generation's increment of progress in tearing down societal sexism.
All this theorizing, and you still don't explain to me why we see the distribution of the AP testing that we do, why at gender-blind universities the rate of females is lower than those that practice affirmative action bar-lowering, and why you think discriminating against qualified men is an appropriate solution.
Until you provide feasible arguments to each of these, no amount of implicitly calling me a sexist is going to change my mind.
[1]http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full.pdf
- wpietri 9y agoThis is the heart of your ignorance: > They just happen in smaller numbers compared to men. Black people just happened to perfect slaves, unsuited to life as free people. [1] Women just happened not to want the vote. [2] Those were dumb arguments then, and it's a dumb argument now. Things don't just happen; they happen for reasons. And given our multi-millennial history of male dominance over women, these reasons are often historical. You can dress it up however you like, but your vigorous defense of the historically biased status quo is inevitably sexist in result. Any woman seeing this is going to immediately have to prepare to be treated like this: https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/ If you really care about helping women into STEM careers, you'll learn some history and stop talking like this. Given the number of anonymous dudes who spend their time arguing against fixing historical sexism who also claim to be super-dedicated to helping women, you can probably work out what I think you'll actually do. [1] See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Cornerstone.27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech#The_.27Corn... or https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.htm... [2] E.g.: https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/womens_suffrage/womendo https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/womens_suffrage/wo...
- jasonx1e 9y agoYou keep saying the same thing, and I keep telling you why you're wrong, and for some reason you keep saying the same thing, as if somehow rewording them changes anything. I'll repeat myself for a change, since you don't seem to get it: "All this theorizing, and you still don't explain to me why we see the distribution of the AP testing that we do, why at gender-blind universities the rate of females in STEM is lower than that of those practicing affirmative action (which essentially amounts to bar-lowering), and why you think discriminating against qualified men is an appropriate solution. Until you provide feasible arguments to each of these, no amount of implicitly calling me a sexist is going to change my mind." >> Those were dumb arguments then, and it's a dumb argument now. Back then, there were laws that actively prohibited African-Americans from attaining freedom and women from voting, and government backed frameworks in place to enforce these laws. Name a SINGLE law today that actively restricts women but not men from choosing any career path. >> you can probably work out what I think you'll actually do. Can you tell me some of YOUR efforts in helping educate and tutor young kids in STEM? Quit stroking yourself by claiming to be morally righteous, get your ass off the internet once in your life, and go tutor a young girl in trigonometry this weekend.