3 ms·

Discussion is not dumping a list of articles on another person. If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them. I don't have

Discussion is not dumping a list of articles on another person. If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them. I don't have time to read 20 articles now. I started with some but the quality of the linked articles was not all that great. "That post is quite accurate. While today some of those things have been corrected after the fact (Lise Meitner is now credited with a Nobel Peace Prize, but did not get awarded at the same time as others), those stories are true." I ask you to read the Wikipedia articles about all those women. It's not at all true that they were forgotten or cheated out of recognition for their work. Another one of them became the first female professor at Harvard, for example. "there are many studies to look at and several books published on the subject." Point me to a good one, then. The one that was linked here was merely a summary. I don't even know how many classrooms were scrutinized.

aestra 13y ago
>the quality of the linked articles was not all that great Why? >You out of hand have dismissed each article posted by the parent and have provided nothing of your own to talk about the flaw you perceive in those item Exactly. >If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them. I did. That's what I posted. I spent time and effort compiling them. I first gave a summary of all the research and then I posted it. This is a cyclical argument.
- facepalm 13y ago
  I looked at the first two. The first was just a small article about employers trying to discern if a woman wants to have children or not. Why did you even link to that? I commented on the second one - it certainly seems interesting, but there was bias apparent already in the second paragraph. How can you expect me to read 15 articles you dump on me? At least give me a reason why they are relevant, or pick two or three? Unfortunately number of quotes doesn't make them more true. I would be interested in articles that show the meat. For example with the classrooms, show me the article that says how the study was conducted. How many classrooms did they watch? Did they try different schools? Different countries? Different cultures?

aestra 13y ago

>the quality of the linked articles was not all that great Why? >You out of hand have dismissed each article posted by the parent and have provided nothing of your own to talk about the flaw you perceive in those item Exactly. >If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them. I did. That's what I posted. I spent time and effort compiling them. I first gave a summary of all the research and then I posted it. This is a cyclical argument.

facepalm 13y ago
I looked at the first two. The first was just a small article about employers trying to discern if a woman wants to have children or not. Why did you even link to that? I commented on the second one - it certainly seems interesting, but there was bias apparent already in the second paragraph. How can you expect me to read 15 articles you dump on me? At least give me a reason why they are relevant, or pick two or three? Unfortunately number of quotes doesn't make them more true. I would be interested in articles that show the meat. For example with the classrooms, show me the article that says how the study was conducted. How many classrooms did they watch? Did they try different schools? Different countries? Different cultures?