/sci/ - Science & Math

To pay them less

>>7167333
How about we create a programming language for wymyn and call it C+= !? Such a progressive move should encourage more wymyn to consider studying STEM instead of the much more difficult yet less recognized Wymyn Stydys.

>>7167333

It helps sell the story of there being a "STEM shortage", which is the excuse for using cheap foreign labor.

>>7167349
Not being racist is also an excuse for using cheap overseas labour. Economics wins again, middle class.

Because there aren't enough women in STEM, and it's an issue of upbringing, not of ability. Women are brought up (in some way) with an intrinsic idea that STEM is not for them. We know this is a lack of drive and not a lack of ability because records don't show equal amounts of men and women declaring a STEM major then failing and switching, but instead show that a vastly different amount of women even declare STEM to start off with. The push is to create role models and show young girls that they can do it, as well. You know, empowerment and shit. It's surprisingly actually not that difficult of a concept.

Mostly to push back how we socialize women to be less inclined to these things in the first place.

I'd argue that the lack of STEM positions is the real problem, rather than the lack of STEM candidates for the limited number of positions.

The STEM immigration debate is a red herring that will fix itself more and more as American science and engineering positions become less desirable from America falling behind.

>>7167356
>It's surprisingly actually not that difficult of a concept.

It is on places like 4chan and Reddit.

>>7167356
Yea but it also leads to an influx of retards like op said that only want fat paychecks from engineering and medical careers without actually understanding or enjoying the material. If they want to motivate women just show them women already in stem and women from history who made contributions.

>>7167333
Education in significant fields improves human capital. Economically, this makes minorities and females vast, untapped reserves.

>>7167342
This is the only right answer.

There is a lack of diversity in STEM. Look around you, most STEM majors are White, CIS gendered, men. This lack of diversity breeds ignorance regarding different identities/cultures and results in microagressions in the workforce, especially against women.

>>7167370
This too. As a white cisgendered man it's super easy to not see microaggressions but when you talk to women and minorities in my college you really can start to see the subtle hits they take.

>>7167348

How about we report your post for RAPE???
Fuckign cishet oppressor.

>>7167356
>We know this is a lack of drive and not a lack of ability
People keep expressing this idea, but I haven't seen a decent study on it. Not because it doesn't exist, but because people won't link me to one.

>but it's obvious, I just explained to y-
Just because something appears obvious does not make it correct.

>>7167363
You're right in that it's the vast, untapped females who are behind this.

>>7167382

>>7167382
I'd like to tap those females.

>>7167361
>it also leads to an influx of retards like op said that only want fat paychecks from engineering and medical careers without actually understanding or enjoying the material.

So you mean literally nothing changes.

>>7167370
>>7167372
Do identity politics really matter in the end at all? Does it matter really whether they are white cis gendered men? Isn't more the case that men are more naturally inclined toward the STEM field because their testosterone incentivizes them to pursue careers in this field?

>>7167358
>I'd argue that the lack of STEM positions is the real problem, rather than the lack of STEM candidates for the limited number of positions.

This is the correct answer.

"STEM shortage is a myth!!1" people aren't looking at the big picture. Sure, there are enough candidates to fill science and engineering positions, but the real problem is that America really isn't playing offense to stay technologically relevant today.

>>7167394

I'm pretty sure you're quoting trolls, but while biology might be a factor in our decisions, it doesn't change the fact that we raise little girls to be caretakers while teaching boys to get dirty and overturn rocks and dissect the world.

What the fuck is up with all this pointless crazy talk of women and non-white people being underrepresented in STEM fields. There is ample evidence which proves women and non-white people are being discriminated against in the STEM fields. All people need to succeed in STEM, as with any field is motivation and enormous dedication, not a hugbox to be encased in.

>>7167348
The equality operator can look like: >=

>men working more hours - not a problem
>women making less money - problem
>men working more dangerous jobs - not a problem
>women getting less important jobs - problem
>men sacrificing more of their personal lives - not a problem
>women getting less leadership positions - problem
>men doing less housework than women - problem
>women doing less home improvements and repairs - not a problem
>men claiming to be better at traditional male roles - problem
>women claiming to be better at traditional female roles - not a problem.

>>7167400
Sometimes I just wish female robots and eternal youth were already a thing..

Reminder that "STEM" is just a buzzword invented by HR to flood the markets with labor and drive salaries down to nothing.

>>7167399
>There is ample evidence which proves women and non-white people are being discriminated against in the STEM fields.

I would love to see it since all the evidence I've seen has implied the opposite.

http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

>>7167398
That is pretty much an oversimplified overview of things. Kids and be what the fuck they want and do what the fuck they want without being bogged down by society. I will admit, boys wanting to dress up in girl's outfits and wanting to do 'girly things' such as play with dolls is frowned upon by many people, but a girl wanting to star gaze or observe insects is hardly unusual to me.

>>7167398
I'm not a troll and I agree with you. Society is raising children off of a sex bias. Because we market engineering to boys and education to girls is why we have such a large gender gap. If we only stopped seeing sex(letting children identify their gender/non gender conforming names) and promoting a sexist system, their would be just as many women in STEM, if not more

>>7167408

SJW's don't need evidence. If you disagree you're a rapist.

>>7167423

Cool non-contribution there, bud. No one brought up the SJW boogeyman before you.

>>7167398
>we raise little girls to be caretakers
Stopped right there. This isn't the 1960's

Shoo SJW trolls

I think also because women in STEM get paid less than their male counterparts also has deterred them

>>7167434

>look mom I'm baiting on the internet

>>7167437
>look mum, I'm a hateful bigot

http://www.aauw.org/2013/04/05/three-reasons-the-wage-gap-hurts-women-in-stem/

>>7167421
Yeah that gender gap sure is an issue. It's really surprising how the sexist society is keeping women out of higher education and STEM, and clearly their enrollment, and graduation records will show that the system clearly favors men.

Wait whats this?
http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.edweek.org%2Fedweek%2Feducation_futures%2F2014%2F12%2Fwhy_are_boys_falling_behind.html

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/02/14/boys-fall-behind-girls-school

http://educationnext.org/gender-gap/

Oh.

Oh everything points to the gender gap being the exact opposite of what you say? HOW CAN THAT BE?

They can leave organic chemistry alone. I can't think of a field closer to 50:50.

>>7167447

>>7167458

turns out there are a lot of guys who are only good for blue collar jobs. the iq distribution of women is more equal and guys tend to be either high or low.

>>7167458
Yet there are still more male engineers than female engineers. Something smells fishy

>>7167471
uh excuse me are you trying to imply that there are more men who are intelligent and suited for high intensity STEM jobs? fuck off back to /pol/ you stupid bigot

>>7167468

>>7167475
Females' effect on other females.

>>7167434
You know, a lot of the money, really the best money, in STEM is in starting companies, often bootstrapping off of a few thousand dollars in savings and by abusing credit cards, often after self-teaching technical skills.

I don't buy the narrative that women are actually just as good (even better! not that that's saying much, you stupid boys!) at all this stuff, but somehow the patriarchy is keeping them down. If that were the case, they'd just go off and start their own businesses, and there would be a bunch of major companies full of all the numerous talented women the patriarchal mainstream wouldn't take.

It would be a completely unstable position, if companies just weren't picking up this talent, or if women just didn't like the way the men acted at these companies.

This supposed pool of untapped talent doesn't exist, or doesn't want to do this work.

>>7167415

Decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

>>7167428

You pretty much have to be completely oblivious if you can't see the different pressures we apply to boys versus girls.

>>7167495
Misoginist

>>7167458

Literally none of those addressed STEM specifically.

>>7167513
For women entering STEM careers, they have all these provisions in place such as support money and programmes to ensure they succeed. Whereas with men, they are expected to succeed or die trying.

>>7167360

If you think 4chan and reddit are the only places where people question it, you must spend most of your time on 4chan and reddit.

>>7167522

>Attempted solutions to these problems prove that these problems don't exist!

I bet you think affirmative action is racist against white people, too.

>>7167495
Pretty much this.
If they excelled at business and technical skills economics suggests they would have been dominant from the beginning or at least been on par.
It's like the pay gap thing. If you could get away with paying person A 25% less for the work person B does then you would go broke to people who only hired persons A, all other things being equal everyone would only hire people A. Kind of like why everything is manufactured in Asia now.

>>7167523

It's pretty much the complete opposite. The only places where it's controversial to say that we pressure the genders into gender roles is on the more neckbeardy/rightwing parts of the internet.

>>7167528
>It's like the pay gap thing. If you could get away with paying person A 25% less for the work person B does then you would go broke to people who only hired persons A, all other things being equal everyone would only hire people A.

You mean if you try to blow over any of the actual causality involved. If a part of employment discrimination partially stems from people not wanting to work with women, then it doesn't make sense to say that they'd be hired for willing to work for less. And pretty much every blind resume study shows that people hire women less when they have identical credentials.

>>7167524
I don't think they are necessarily bad things but they become dangerous things when people use them to boost their own personal ego and accentuate their victimhood.

>>7167538

Not to be that way but I really only see white people and asians using affirmative action to play the victim card.

>>7167544
And why whites and asians need be using affirmative action in the first place?

>>7167530
It's not 'us' it's the selective pressures of our differing mating strategies. To even conceive that the sexes should follow similar life paths implies that we have the same needs goals and desires, which is pretty much not the case.
Note that like business strategies, these aren't imposed top-down from some sort of centrally planned government, but on a what works thrives basis.
We didn't get together in a group meeting and decide that women should have lots of kids and love kids and everything to do with it. Those people just thrived. Same with men and competition and geometric relations and strength.

Anyway. Time spent working for a grill is time not spent reproducing, and given the limited years and thus opportunities for mating, this is a bad strat. See; India, china, etc.

>>7167533
If businesses who didn't reject more women did better they would be the norm. Obviously women with equivalent credentials aren't as good employees.
The take home from this isn't that businesses are cunts who hate women but that those who hire women fail.

>>7167495
>or doesn't want to do this work.
This.

One of the thing the wage gap studies usually fail to mention is that women typically work shorter hours than men, or prioritize positions that give them more flexibility.

Let's send this shit back to /pol/ where it belongs.

>>7167544
Affirmative action should only be a relatively small component in getting a candidate admitted into an academic institution or a job position. Over use of affirmative action for the purpose of perpetuating a hubris, self-aggrandizing attitude toward diversity and social justice is in itself a bad thing. Financial affirmative action is something which I can perfectly comprehend, but affirmative action on the basis of race and gender is something which leaves a lot of impressions on people other than the said designated race and gender - it can perpetuate the notions those people are weak and debilitated from making their on self-initiated decisions. This is why throwing money at so-called "under representation" doesn't work.

>>7167547
>And why whites and asians need be using affirmative action in the first place?

Not because of their race, but if they have any type of disability or if they are poor they can apply for quite a few.

On a related note if you're white you may still get some ethical scholarship - there are Irish, Italian, German ones, for instance.

>>7167557
By 'financial affirmative action', I'm referring to candidates constrained by personal financial situations.

>>7167558
Anybody can apply for a disability or financial hardship scholarship regardless of race or gender.

I don't live in North America or Europe so I wouldn't be aware of those ethical scholarships.

>>7167554
>One of the thing the wage gap studies usually fail to mention is that women typically work shorter hours than men,

I've literally never seen an adjusted wage gap study fail to leave out such an obvious factor.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Ask me how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

>>7167552
>Obviously women with equivalent credentials aren't as good employees.

I'm in love with this amount of cognitive dissonance.

>The take home from this isn't that businesses are cunts who hate women but that those who hire women fail.

"The causality from all of these correlations is obviously the one of my prejudices."

Excellent debunking video of the wage gap myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0b7gYofGBY

>>7167560
>>7167557

It's a matter of intersectionality. Having the same academic credentials and household income, you will still on average win less scholarship grant if you're black, which is why racial scholarship exists in the first place.

http://www.finaid.org/scholarships/20110902racescholarships.pdf

AA has come a long way, today it is more about focusing on specific problems rather than throwing gender, class, race, etc. all in one pie.

>>7167574

I prefer peer-reviewed comprehensive studies that painstakingly control for every normalizable variable of male versus female candidates over vloggers' youtube videos, personally.

>>7167572
See, it turns out two -can- play the baseless assertion of causality in favour of my position game.

>>7167572
Women control over half of the wealth.

How could men be excluding and undervaluing them?

For some sort of systematic workplace oppression of women to work in a society where women are legally equal and control more of the wealth than men, a plurality of women would have to be in on it, because even a few defectors would reap immense profits and rapidly gain economic power.

>>7167583
>peer-reviewed

There is your problem.

>>7167581
Still perpetuates the notion that black people are weak and helpless. Also, how would you know black people would be turned down for financial hardship scholarships.

>>7167592

I'm not saying that reviewing well in a strong-standing journal makes every study right.

But peer-reviewed studies absolutely, on average, have more reliable conclusions than just putting your layman faith in any study you can find.

>>7167594
>Still perpetuates the notion that black people are weak and helpless.

Only to people already holding those prejudices.

>how would you know black people would be turned down for financial hardship scholarships.

Race and class are two very different problems.

>>7167597
Have you even considered confirmation bias may be possibly a contingent factor?

Also, why bother not watching the video? Just because it is an entirely different medium, doesn't compromise its informative legitimacy.

>>7167600
It isn't fair when one group gets all the financial support and programmes and the other group is expected to succeed or die trying. Affirmative action when used as a major contingent into getting an applicant admitted is dangerous because it perpetuates the notion the said group of people do not need to invest the same level of work ethic as everyone else because of their victim complex. It is fabricating this victim complex which leaves a prominent impression not only prejudiced people but inadvertently on all other people regardless of gender or race.

>>7167581
You completely distorted that paper.
It says that blacks are less likely to win MERIT based scholarships.

Just provide funding for low income students since that's what would be causing them to be less able to achieve that same amount of "merit", and the problem can be solved.

Of course, the other choice would be to believe that blacks are inherently inferior and require special assistance.

>>7167607
>It isn't fair when one group gets all the financial support and programmes and the other group is expected to succeed or die trying.

Which is exactly why affirmative action exists.


>>7167624
>It says that blacks are less likely to win MERIT based scholarships.

Correct - even when controlling for academic qualifications. Meaning that if white student A and black student B have the same credentials, and apply to the same amount of merit-based scholarships, student A will still on average be granted more scholarship money.

Both of you seem to be basing your premises as if the playing field for applying for merit-based scholarship is even for people who are otherwise equal except for race, when the statistics show that black people get granted less merit-based scholarships even when they have the same academic merit.

Trying to then assert that providing black people extra aid to even the playing field, is in fact giving them any sort of advantage over white people, is putting the cart before the horse - you're confusing a solution with the problem.

>>7167631
Except it exists to reinforce this notion with so-called "people of colour" and women.

Identity politics are horrible and by the far the worst thing that happened to the "left" in this country. It's sickening.

>tfw you'll never have life, love, and happiness handed to you on a silver platter
>tfw you'll never be a western female in the 21st century

>>7167631
Trying to then assert that providing black people extra aid to even the playing field, is in fact giving them any sort of advantage over white people, is putting the cart before the horse - you're confusing a solution with the problem.

And you haven't possibly considered that perhaps these so-called the "solutions" could lead to ramifications stemming from a professional victimhood at sorts? This is why it pays to show a reasonable level of skepticism over these programmes and political correctness in general. You are not teaching people anything by perpetuating the notion they are somehow oppressed by society and therefore in order mediate this, they require a form positive discrimination. Nigs gonna nig.

>>7167654
That above quote was meant to be green texted by the way.

And by using the word "nig" in this context, it is not indicative of me harbouring racial prejudices against black people.

>>7167356
>women are only different because of upbringing
This ideology is not backed up by evidence though. I don't know why people take this seriously. People just don't seem to care when it comes to the claims of gender studies.

>>7167656
>>7167631
Language changes over course of time. Don't go into this ludicrous hissy fit about how use of the term is passively perpetuating racial prejudice. Like how the majority of people use the term 'faggott' as a synonym for 'moron' or idiot', I use the term synonymously with 'loathesome' and 'unpleasant'. Go figure.

>>7167581
I'm looking through that paper, and it's claiming that there's inequality since white students earn 65.2% of private scholarships.
Then, the paper itself states that white students form 68.2% of the student population.

>>It says that blacks are less likely to win MERIT based scholarships.

>Correct - even when controlling for academic qualifications. Meaning that if white student A and black student B have the same credentials, and apply to the same amount of merit-based scholarships, student A will still on average be granted more scholarship money.

That's going by GPA for determining if students are equivalent, not income, and extra curricular activities are going to be a direct result of one's family's income and the opportunities that that presents.

The fact is, you're not solving any problem. You're creating one, and then putting money where doesn't need to go. Ironically, race based scholarships favor rich minorities and, as the paper states, leads to the belief that minorities receive more than they deserve.

>>7167478
Did you really not understand what was written there?

I'm not asking you to agree with it or take it as fact. But did you literally not understand what was said?

>>7167631
>>It says that blacks are less likely to win MERIT based scholarships.
>Correct - even when controlling for academic qualifications.
Nope. You made that shit up. It's not in the study.

There's nothing in there to suggest that institutional merit-based scholarships are distributed according to anything but merit. There's no figure "controlling for academic qualifications" in the merit-based statistics, only in the private statistics.

As for private scholarships, there's no mention of whether they're merit-based or not, and they're often directed toward members of a very specific community, as a gift rather than as charity, and frequently awarded to rich kids who don't need the help.

This study lumps merit-based and private scholarships together, to imply that there's some some injustice involved which justifies government intervention, while it doesn't dispute that the merit-based scholarships are granted by genuine merit, and when private scholarships are often the equivalent of parents giving their kids money for school.

It neither makes the case that minorities are being discriminated against in merit-based scholarships, nor the case that poor white people have better or even equal access to private scholarships compared to minorities (there was no attempt to control for family income, and as I've pointed out, many private scholarships are gifts by the rich to rich kids).

It does show that poor minorities are being favored in government scholarship and need-based programs, but it argues that this is only fair, since rich and talented white students are getting so much.

4-star post.

The missing star is because I'm out of whiskey and cranky.

>>7167654
>You are not teaching people anything by perpetuating the notion they are somehow oppressed by society

It's not about teaching people. It's about opening up college access and to try and give people a fair chance.

>in order mediate this, they require a form positive discrimination.

Feel free to provide a better solution.

>>7167656
>And by using the word "nig" in this context, it is not indicative of me harbouring racial prejudices against black people.

Sure thing, bud..

>>7167675

I guessed you missed the GPA portion.

>>7167654
>Nigs gonna nig.

I love when people throw their good faith down the toilet.

>>7167675
...and I mean, this is where the whole affirmative action and social justice thing gets nasty: the way poor and ordinary or subnormal whites are treated.

Rich and talented white people aren't really losing anything. They're not in danger of being displaced, or pushed down to stark and hopeless poverty. They can accept some underqualified black people taking classes with them or working for them, and feel charitable, enlightened, and virtuous, while suffering only minor inconveniences and costs.

Meanwhile, they're stomping down the poor and ordinary whites to make room for less qualified, disciplined, and hard-working minorities, and telling them that this is only fair to balance things out, because whites (on average) have it so good.

It's not balancing anything out, it's just adding injustice to the system, and fuelling racial hatred between the lower classes.

The speech didn't go, "I have a dream that each race would collectively be allocated an equal statistical distribution of success and misery, regardless of the content of each man's individual character."

>>7167695
>I guessed you missed the GPA portion.
Okay, you find it for me. Tell me the page number, quote the text.

Are you thinking of page 6? "The following table provides information on the distribution of PRIVATE SCHOLARSHIPS by race, but only for students with a college GPA of 3.5 or better on a 4.0 scale"

Because that's about the private scholarships, not the merit-based ones. All private scholarships are lumped together, regardless that one fund is, "for black people, who need it" and one fund is, "for one of the boys at the yacht club by our summer home".

>>7167333
>All that this does is make it harder for people who actually WANT to do STEM stuff.
no, it doesn't

>>7167701

Except that poverty scholarships exist so your argument is moot.

>>7167705
>All private scholarships are lumped together, regardless that one fund is, "for black people, who need it" and one fund is, "for one of the boys at the yacht club by our summer home".

Is country club style racism acceptable to you then?

You know that things like lacrosse and golf extracurriculars didn't start earning extra brownie points with scholarships until racial scholarships started showing? Wonder why?

This is a really good discussion on women in science. Sometimes I don't really understand women, maybe it's because I am a man, but the double standards we have is also a double edge sword for women.

The women in science I know are very intellectually attractive and often (but not all) very pleasant to talk to. The women study liberal arts majors and art appreciation;however, are very eloquent at times but I noticed they are unattractive to me. Maybe it's because the way they are raised. Of course I can't say this for all people I will meet.

>>7167701

As >>7167581 and >>7167600 mentioned, class and race have pretty different sets of advantages. Scholarship for the poor is older than racial scholarships, but before racial scholarships, a disproportionate amount of it went to poor whites instead of poor blacks. So race-specific scholarships popped up as a result.

As the linked study showed, white people aren't disadvantaged by scholarships even when taking racial scholarships into consideration, so I do wonder why racial scholarships bother people (just kidding, we all know why really).

>>7167714
>poverty scholarships
Oh, so the availability of any scholarship funds whatsoever for poor white people means that scholarship funds can't possibly favor poor black people over them?

>>7167718
>Is country club style racism acceptable to you then?
"Country club style racism" might exclude black people fairly effectively, but it also excludes poor white people. So it's really just classism, and it's pretty vicious to pretend that it doesn't affect poor white people.

Anyway, those sorts of scholarships are often carefully targetted at one's family, friends, and business associates.

>>7167721
>white people aren't disadvantaged by scholarships even when taking racial scholarships into consideration
I'll repeat: many of those scholarships are narrowly targetted, and roughly equivalent to parents giving their kids money for college.

You can't just look at the numbers and have meaning. They have to be interpreted, and it's easy to see what you want to see. It's important to recognize when essential information is absent from the statistics, and conclusions can't be drawn.

>>7167724

>>7167721

>>7167698
Refer to my following comment.

>>7167356

>equality as a false norm

women want to have children and live comfortably. there is no difference in praxis between lacking ability and lacking motivation

daily reminder that equal pay for equal work is a detriment to the employability of women and only promotes sexual discrimination in hiring

the only way women can get hired in STEM careers is to underbid men on wages

>>7167753

Nigger is still used as a severe racial slur. You just just decide that we've all moved on when the common useage of the word has obviously barely changed.

>>7167756
>daily reminder that equal pay for equal work is a detriment to the employability of women and only promotes sexual discrimination in hiring

[citation needed]

>>7167760

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

>implying you have a better grasp of economics than the most respected economist of the 20th century

>>7167768
>implying you have a better grasp of economics than the most respected economist of the 20th century

This is never a good argument. Because people's expertise is typically in specific areas. In this case his economic focus is on stabilization policy and consumption analysis, not studies on the effects of equal pay legislation, almost all of which disagree with him.

>>7167370
>There is a lack of diversity in STEM.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong.
When I was in graduate school, I was the only American graduate student, and every professor in my department was a foreigner--and no two of them were from the same country. During my time in research, I worked with people from over 40 countries. But yeah, there's no diversity in science. Even if there wasn't, why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Walk into any graduate math or physics department. You will be hard pressed to see a white male.

>>7167333
not this again

This myth was started by a feminist who still this day can't prove any of it.
>but people like you can repeat it...

>>7167784
This is /pol topic btw

>stop openly hating white men
They are the ones who gave you cars, building, computers and running water...

It is fair to ask women to be women...
They have their own plans in life. Those who want to be scientists ARE ALREADY scientists.
>Accept the fact that not that many women want to study difficult topics

>>7167784

>Taking articles over comprehensive methodological studies because they confirm your prejudices

>>7167786

From a fucking prolife site even are you kekking me

>>7167776

Oh I'm sure there are various studies authored by liberal think-tanks and the like that appear to show benefits to equal pay, just like there are such studies for affirmative action and minimum wage. That doesn't prove anything.

Friedman's argument is sound. All equal pay laws do is eliminate the for exercising discrimination in hiring and employment practices.

Let us take it in another way. Let us say a gun manufacturer is trying to win a government contract to supply the US army with rifles. If their product is inferior to that of their competitor, then the only way they can contend is to underbid them. If however their product is equal in quality to that of their competitor, but some extraneous favoritism gives their competitor the edge, then once again, their only real recourse is to underbid on the contract.

In a perfect world there would be equal pay for equal work. But our world isn't perfect, and no amount of regulation can make it so. And as is often the case in these matters, special regulations hurt the cause they are trying to promote. It's not a question of dessert. It's a question of economics. You can't eliminate the arbitrary prejudices of people in positions of power. All you can do is make it costly to exercise their prejudice. Equal pay for equal work laws thwart this goal, and the party discriminated against is no better off for it.

>>7167776

Oh I'm sure there are various studies authored by liberal think-tanks and the like that appear to show benefits to equal pay, just like there are such studies for affirmative action and minimum wage. That doesn't prove anything.

Friedman's argument is sound. All equal pay laws do is eliminate the penalty for exercising discrimination in hiring and employment practices.

Let us take it in another way. Let us say a gun manufacturer is trying to win a government contract to supply the US army with rifles. If their product is inferior to that of their competitor, then the only way they can contend is to underbid them. If however their product is equal in quality to that of their competitor, but some extraneous favoritism gives their competitor the edge, then once again, their only real recourse is to underbid on the contract.

In a perfect world there would be equal pay for equal work. But our world isn't perfect, and no amount of regulation can make it so. And as is often the case in these matters, special regulations hurt the cause they are trying to promote. It's not a question of dessert. It's a question of economics. You can't eliminate the arbitrary prejudices of people in positions of power. All you can do is make it costly to exercise their prejudice. Equal pay for equal work laws thwart this goal, and the party discriminated against is no better off for it.

I can't be the only one who sees this, can I?

>>7167792
>I'm sure there are various studies authored by liberal think-tanks and the like that appear to show benefits to equal pay, just like there are such studies for affirmative action and minimum wage. That doesn't prove anything.

I'm going to guess that your very definition of a "liberal think-tank" is any study with the conclusions you don't like.

Meanwhile you just literally, unironically, tried to link to a pro-life blog for your source.

>>7167803

You are arguing with two different people, try and keep track.

And what I am referring to are circular studies, where the conclusions are already decided from the outset and the data is simply parsed so as to confirm them. Both sides of the political spectrum engage in this sort of thing. It's not valid in any case.

Conducting a study is not simply a question of compiling numbers. Most studies need to have their data interpreted and accounted for. Circular studies will stretch and cut the data like a bed of Procrustes until it attains the aspect they wish to present. This is not valid.

>>7167790
OECD study.

The article is about an extensive OECD study....

Cognitive dissonance.
>instantly discarding everything that proves you wrong

Fucking liberal, homo social justice warrior that blaming everybody for his mistakes and failures except themselves.

>back to tumblr you go

>>7167807
>bed of Procrustes
Man, I thought it was gross when I didn't change my sheets with only amateur crusties.

>>7167816

>le lowbrow joke

>>7167818
Man, you don't get it.

This shit can just happen to women, at any time.

>>7167824

>>7167807
>what I am referring to are circular studies, where the conclusions are already decided from the outset and the data is simply parsed so as to confirm them. Both sides of the political spectrum engage in this sort of thing. It's not valid in any case.

What you're referring to is just automatically assuming that every study with a conclusion you don't like has flawed methodology, meanwhile you haven't provided any type of research whatsoever for your own claims except for a baseless blurb from outside your source's area of study.

>>7167839

yeah I'm still waiting on you to provide me with an empirically sound study that proves it does not have that effect. You're making spurious inferences based on the fact that you don't like my conclusion, which happens to be logically sound. I stand by what I say. Your appeal to particular 'experts' is no more credible than my own; but the arguments I put forward do hold water, unlike yours.

>>7167370
>gender studies major confirmed
>>7167783
This ^ is spot on, my last class of the day today has maybe 12 Americans, 5 white males, 4 Hispanic males, 3 white females. The rest of the class(90 seats) consisted of Indian chinese African and other various racial backgrounds slightly skewed male

>>7167333
Can't men be role models for women? I had female role models, no problem.

>>7167885
That's too progressive for the people of today to understand.

>>7167342

>>7167872
To be honest, the lack of diversity I'm a little concerned about is the overwhelming number of Chinese people. I feel like we're going to be on the losing side of a blending of cultures if we aren't careful. Maybe that's just in mathematics or at my school, though.

You just gave me a great idea, OP.
Since women obviously don't want to be in STEM careers, how about instead of encouraging them to take up STEM majors (which obviously doesn't work) we simply prevent the majority of male applicants from being accepted?
If we start rejecting 90% of applicants who would have otherwise been successful then we'll quickly find our STEM subjects dominated by women.
Equality for all!

>>7167853
>Your appeal to particular 'experts' is no more credible than my own

lol what? The bulk of sociology disagrees with you, while your authority had no expertise on the matter. It's not like two people bringing in authority on the matter cancels out, you have to weigh the authorities and their cases.

>I'm still waiting on you to provide me with an empirically sound study

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2554759?sid=21106325667593&uid=2&uid=4

>There is little doubt that the two pieces of legislation had a substantial effect on the relative earnings of women having been roughly constant for the period prior to the early 1970s, they then rose sharply and were roughly constant thereafter

https://books.google.com/books?id=Spd0BAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA480&ots=eGaQdf_tx4&dq=Houghton%2C%20Kimberly%20J.%201999.%20%22The%20Equal%20Pay%20Act%20of%201963%3A%20Where%20Did%20We%20Go%20Wrong%3F%22&pg=PA479#v=onepage&q=Houghton,%20Kimberly%20J.%201999.%20%22The%20Equal%20Pay%20Act%20of%201963:%20Where%20Did%20We%20Go%20Wrong?%22&f=true

>The Equal Pay Act applies equally to all sectors and occupations, but it has had a substantially positive effect on human services occupations

You should read the context and methodology sections on these pieces though if you really want to grasp the causality involved.

>>7167900
If we start rejecting 90% of MALE applicants

>>7167348
https://gitorious.org/c-plus-equality

You're welcome.

>>7167398
Gender differences in toy choices and modes of play first appear in infancy, before societal expectations come into play.

Men are not women, or vice versa. They are different, on a biological level. These differences are not socially constructed.

Get your postmodernist horse shit off my science board.

>>7167524
>he doesn't know that white women benefit the most from "affirmative action"
It's racist AND sexist.

>>7168153

Well said.

>>7167402
Also artificial wombs.
Artificial egg cells are already here so half-way to men fathering their children as nature intended : by using science and engineering.

>>7167428
>Can't use apostrophes correctly
Opinion discarded.

>>7167333
The real reason is that engineers cannot stop gobbling all of the cocks. The tragedy is that barely any engineers are women.

By making engineers women, we neckbeards have a chance of our cocks being gobbled.

>>7167356
https://vimeo.com/19707588

>>7168224
I love this one! I think it's great.

>>7167356
>Diverse for simply for diverse stake.

That's why this push fail and demographic numbers allway go to there usual standards. People make their career choices for rather shallow reasons but sheer tokenism isn't one of them.

>>7168153
I kinda like postmodernism but it's habit of deconstructing EVERYTHING (regardless of merit) is quite annoying.

>>7168256
Wait, postmodernism produced anything useful ?
Source please.

>people seriously believe that consistent career choices across genders is a cultural phenomenon

I thought I clicked on /sci/ but it looks like I wound up on tumblr

>>7168260
It's up in the air until we understand better how the brain develops at an early stage, but the opinion that somehow the brain develops differently just like the reproductive area, skeleton, and entire body is so unpopular that I'm afraid I will have to charge your account with a downvote.

>>7168256

Its deconstruction of everything is literally its central purpose. Postmodernism is an application of Critical Theory, which is all about dismantling the status quo for the sake of dismantling it. It's literally just fixing shit that ain't broke to push an agenda.

>>7167370

>>7168179
Kek

>>7167706

Actually it does. The number of STEM classes available are limited compared to English and Art because they actually require someone who knows what they're doing to teach it. If you start shoehorning a bunch of women who can't actually handle the course material to fill a quota, you reduce the amount of seats available for those who actually do want to be there.

>>7167902
>The bulk of sociology disagrees with you
>sociology

Top kek

it's all economics: increase the supply of something without increasing demand --> price of it goes down.

>>7168917
>just as planned

>>7167759
Language has dialects.
For English at least, there also is no standard governing committee, so what is considered "correct" is more subjective, especially when it comes to pronunciation or word usage.

For "nigger", unless you're a completely clueless, you have to realize that its usage and "severity" in certain contexts will vary.

Besides, you're trying to call someone's argument incorrect because they used a word you found offensive. That's not how debate works.

>>7167370
Male, yes. White - not so much. Asian people are generally well represented in Physics, Engineering, and Maths.

>>7167423
If we don't examine the problem objectively, we're as bad as them.

>>7168198
>is not the
You are fucking retarded you idiotic piece of fucking shit.

>>7167356
>Because there aren't enough women in STEM
What is considered enough women in STEM? What is that even being based on? Is the goal to strictly get more women involved or to increase the ratio of women to men?

I'm for having more women in STEM if they actually want to be in STEM. Trying to inject more women in STEM based on a male to female ratio is a bad idea though.

>>7168958
This. Learn to understand the context of words and how varied they are applied over the course of time. We are living in a day and age where word, particularly slang and pejorative terms can swiftly morph in definition and application. It is therefore not wise to ascribe such a word as 'faggot' and 'nigger' with an arbitrary prescription denoting homophobic and racial tendencies. The fact that anons on this site use the two terms interchangeably in one other to describe each other is exemplary of how language evolves, particularly in the online realm.

>>7169002
This. In my country South Asians and East Asians dominate the entire STEM field.

>>7167890
EE here, almost all the graduate students at my school are Chinese or Indian

>>7167372
minori-STEM. Suck it up don't be a fag and then your aggressors will embarass themselves anyway. It's like when chinks would complain that I only got in to good schools in the US cause of muh affirmative action even though I had tutored them prior.

>>7167333
Look into a little thing called cultural Marxism.

You will hire that "human" with a 75 IQ and let him fly your passenger jet or I will accuse you of racism. Check your privilege, die cis scum.

>>7167755
>women want to have children and live comfortably.
Ah, right. Because men want live on the brink of poverty and have no interest in passing on their genes.

Everyone wants to live comfortably, and most people want children. Problem is, if you're a man, wanting kids means you get to keep doing what you love while your wife takes care of the kids. If you're a woman, wanting kids means you have to stop doing what you love so that you can take care of the kids. Since women are expected to be the ones to rear the children that both partners wanted, any "career" they have in the beginning is pointless because they're expected to drop it to become housewives. What motivation is there for a woman to spend 7+ years in higher education to get a degree in STEM when she'll have to quit to have kids within 10 years? Since there's no guarantee that she won't have to quit her career, I can't see why more women would want to enter STEM

>>7169515
this isn't /pol/, so I won't debate, but you're oversimplifying cultural marxism and generalizing marxists to be like tumblr fags.

>>7167400
I hope you know that there are people who don't mean this when they say "equality."

>>7169650
Why are you conflating Marxism with "Cultural Marxism"?

Marxism is a political philosophy concerning the ownership of property, the role of the state and the distribution of wealth.

"Cultural Marxism" is a word made up by racist right-wing Americans (because they think mentioning left wing philosophy will rally people to their cause, because to Americans "socialism" is a dirty word) to describe some perceived injustice in the world and to justify their racism.

The two are not related.

>>7169515
>cultural Marxism
literally a made-up boogieman by /pol/tards

>>7169640
>they're expected to drop it to become housewives
this is not the 50s

>if you're a man, wanting kids means you get to keep doing what you love while your wife takes care of the kids.
no it means working a lot more than you used to (at a job that is almost certainly not "what you love") so that three or more people can live on your paycheck

>>7167658
Because they would risk being crucified in the court of public opinion if they questioned the party line.

Or, like Socrates, executed for corrupting the youth.

>>7169720
So are you saying that you'd be willing to give up your career to watch your kids while your wife continued working? It sure as shit isn't easy going back to teaching/researching after a few years of raising a kid, so many people don't go back if they've been out of academia for that long.
>at a job that is almost certainly not "what you love"
I'm going to guess you're an engineer and went in for the money.