[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 63 KB, 460x360, doom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2469633 No.2469633 [Reply] [Original]

Why is it considered progressive and pro-feminist to encourage women to be scientists? Isn't science just another form of labor? Isn't a laboratory just a fancy kitchen?

In movies and TV shows and stuff, any time the writers want to show how "girls can be anything they want," they always use science as the first example of something girls can be. How about a fucking heavyweight boxer? Or a U.S. Army Ranger? Are those just not girly enough? Why not just say girls can be anything they want as long as it falls within an acceptable threshold of gender-neutrality. Great message, hypocrites.

>> No.2469682
File: 53 KB, 800x600, 1257202511338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2469682

It's because everyone agrees that these kinda jobs are better.

Is there a specific term for a Female that supports gender equality but in real life she expects Males to still hold the door for her?

>> No.2469691

>>2469682
>Is there a specific term for a Female that supports gender equality but in real life she expects Males to still hold the door for her?

I believe it is "woman".

>> No.2469714

We had to discuss how engineering departments literally beg women to major in it, yet no one ever does. (Except ChemE, because med school.) Maybe they just don't like it, or are not interested, I never saw what the problem was with too few females in engineering. The ones in it were just as smart as the guys, and they seemed perfectly happy, yet the department continues to see it as some sort of crisis.

>> No.2469725

>>2469714
>Maybe they just don't like it, or are not interested

Bingo

>> No.2469738
File: 27 KB, 400x633, dilbert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2469738

>>2469714
There's a reason engineers are stereotyped as bumbling social fuckwits. It's because nobody actually wants to be an engineer, so they get all the people who are no good at anything but crunching numbers and data.

>> No.2469739
File: 24 KB, 256x256, awesomeEngie2_icon354.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2469739

>>2469725
What's not to like about engineering

>> No.2469744

>>2469739
You'll start getting strange urges once you head down that path.

>> No.2469748

>>2469739
Real military engineers design stuff they never get to use. Designing cool guns and planes is probably only slightly more interesting than designing cars.

>> No.2469750

>>2469739
What's not to like about _insert career here_?

I wonder how many female garbage collectors there are.

>> No.2469763

>>2469682
Feminazi as slang, hambeast as technical, misanthropist maybe? I dunno.

>> No.2469782

ugottabetrollin'
>women can be anything they wanna be - why not a heavy weight boxer?

Well, I want to play in the NBA. I'm almost 6 foot tall and clumsy, but I can be anything I want to be, right?

Obviously, the point is women should be free persue whatever career thay want WITHIN THEIR PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS. I won't play in the NBA, few women can be boxer. But those who can, more power to em.

>> No.2469785

>>2469782
So they aren't equal?

>> No.2469788

Relavent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre

Some asshole blamed an engineering school's desire to increase female enrollment for his own rejection. Went and shot twelve female engineering students.

My undergrad society decided to give in to feminists and stop hiring strippers for our partys after this bullshit. RageFace.jpg

>> No.2469795

>>2469750
http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/10-worst-jobs-2011

lol equality my ass.

>> No.2469802
File: 75 KB, 371x500, 1295908305975.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2469802

>>2469785
Nope. There will always be physiological differences between men and women. And to be honest, I like it that way.

>> No.2469810

>>2469785
Equal, yes. The same, no.

Few women have the upper body strenght to do some of the jobs that men often do. Yes, even garbage collector. But those who are capiable and want that job, would you deny them because of their sex?

>> No.2469812

>>2469802
So they should stop trying to be equal.

>> No.2469817

>>2469810
I'll never have a job as a speller. LOL

>> No.2469819

>>2469812
They should remain equal, just not......symmetrical, if you get my meaning.

>> No.2469826

>>2469812
You seem to be failing hard at understanding the distinction between equal treatment and actually being identical.

It means being graded and rewarded on the same basis as everyone else.

Your upper body strength isn't up to the work required in the fire department? You don't get hired. It's not about gender.

>> No.2469830

>>2469788
>"Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women."

Typical women's studies/English majors. Reading into blatantly literal shit and distorting the point. It's a fucking madman who shot people because he was insane. What, do the shootings in Arizona this year symbolize man's struggle against political meet & greets? No. It's just some guy who was fucking batshit insane. You should read it as just that and stop trying to distort it to promote your agenda.

That pissed me off right there. Pissed me the fuck off. I'll eat whichever public official said that, from his head to his asshole. I'll eat him.

>> No.2469834

This is why the idea that women are "leaving men behind" due to higher college graduation rates is b.s.

Women are much more likely to take liberal arts or psychology, or 'insert obscure culture' studies, or whatever, and when they do venture into the natural science it's often limited to biology.

Then people like Jean Houston come of these humanities programs and go on to make moronic comments about science--not as a profession mind you--as a method is sexist, and needs "female insight" or some such babble.

>> No.2469835

>>2469826
he not failing; he trollin

>> No.2469837

>>2469788
I think this shows another important thing, pushing for quotas and other measures to increase enrollment for certain groups actually creates hostility towards that group, as people start to generalize everyone in that group as people who need a handicap. It's pure idiocy, no one gains anything from having more female engineers, and female engineers themselves have something to lose from it, namely the respect of being acknowledged as someone who can get shit done without training wheels.

>> No.2469840

>>2469830
This is why I study mathematics. Non-euclidean geometries have nothing to do with anyfag's struggle against any other fag.

Fuck 'em all; give me some data to analyze.

>> No.2469841

>>2469826
So why are more men studying science than women? That has nothing to do with physical strength.

>> No.2469842

women and men are identical but we should seperate them for sports because they can't compete with men.

why the fuck are there women categories of sports except beach volleyball?

>> No.2469848

>>2469830
You'll love Australia.

>> No.2469851

>>2469841
Because most women are capable of, but lacking the desire to use, logic and reason.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a foreveralone weaboo who has never lived with a woman.

>> No.2469857

>>2469830
>Typical women's studies/English majors
the vocal minority do not represent "typical".
My GF was English major and she isn't like that. She was an English major, so she could become an English teacher. Hope that is OK with you.

>> No.2469858

>>2469851
Why do they lack that desire? Are they not as motivated as men? Not as mature as men? Not as brave as men?

>> No.2469865

>>2469714

This, it's just getting fucking ridiculous. In my country women automatically get bonus points on their GPA's when applying to engineering studies so that more women get accepted, even if their grades initially weren't good enough. The only thing this leads to are dumber female engineers.

Furthermore, any female who did electrical engineering the year I started got a free laptop. Evidence supports that men might just be more interested in maths and physics in general but women still insist the only reason they didn't become an engineer was because they were given dolls instead of lego's as a kid. It's stupid.

I don't know why society is so incredibly bent on denying the fact that women and men are in fact different. With all the physical differences it'd be very naive to think we don't have any mental differences as well.

Women can do whatever the hell they want, but it's not a PROBLEM that a lot of women have different interests than men.

>> No.2469869

>>2469857
Your girlfriend does not represent all English majors. And I'm talking about English majors, as in people who study English so that they can become "specialists," not teachers.

>> No.2469873

>>2469865
Holy fucking shit, what country do you live in? May an F12 tornado visit them.

>> No.2469874

>>2469857
That is fine with me, teaching English and history is great for women.
>>2469858
Because it was not evolutionarily beneficial for women to think the way men do, using the scientific method and disregarding emotion, etc. That is why different sets of ethics evolved with women and with men.
more information is here http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

>> No.2469876

>>2469841
Because more men WANT to study science?

>> No.2469885

>>2469874
So guess what? THEY AREN'T EQUAL, PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY

>> No.2469891

>>2469885
You got me ^_^

>> No.2469905

>>2469874
So the argument is now that there tend to be psychological differences between the sexes?

I think that is true. I think more men tend to be interested in science and engineering. So what? Are you saying that a woman who has an interest and an apptitude for science should not compeate with men (on a level field)? If you are, that is just stupid.

>> No.2469924

>>2469905
A level field means that everyone is judged on their individual merit. If anyone can't make the cut, they don't get to do that job or enter that degree program. Gender shouldn't enter into it at all.

>> No.2469926

>>2469905
Not "should not," but "would not." How about we let them fucking think for themselves and choose whatever they want to do and stop worrying about quotas we need to fill? I mean, are they not mature enough to think for themselves or something? Is that what you're saying? Do we NEED to force women into specific fields of study because they "should" compete with men for some bizarre reason in your mind?

>> No.2469931

>>2469885
you mean they are not "the same".

>> No.2469932
File: 119 KB, 390x390, 1288124754966.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2469932

>>2469905
>Are you saying that a woman who has an interest and an apptitude for science should not compeate with men (on a level field)? If you are, that is just stupid.

You're fucking retarded for pulling that out of your ass. Go read the paper by Baumeister and learn something.

Pic related >mfw I can't have a conversation about gender without somebody labeling me a sexist.

>> No.2469937

I'll believe in equality when I can punch out a guy and a girl for the exact same thing and recieve equal punishments for both.

>> No.2469940

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm always pleasantly surprised when I meet scientifically interested women. I prefer their company even, and would certainly have no problem if there were more of them in society to enter the science and engineering professions.

No one is arguing that women can't or shouldn't do science. Sadly, it seems that many don't want to.

>> No.2469941

>>2469931
Regardless, we shouldn't try to MAKE them the same/equal. Whichever lifestyle is better, man's or woman's, is your opinion. Personally, I'd say the man's lifestyle is better based on history, but whatever.

>> No.2469947

>>2469931
Nope. Not equal is the proper terminology. I will refer you to the argument that 2+2=/=4 because 2+2 is a process (of adding two groups of two items each) and 4 is a quantity.

Think moar.

>> No.2469949

>>2469940
The women you're referring to are in the extreme minority.

>> No.2469950

I wish more women did physics so I could know what it is like to have another female as a friend

>foreveralone

>> No.2469952

>>2469950
How about you get a friend who doesn't do physics?

>> No.2469953

>>2469865
Are you seriously denying that toys are a form of indoctrination in children?

>> No.2469968

>>2469924
>>2469926
I agree 100% that the standards should not be lowered for anyone because of that person's sex (or race, or whatever). I don't have a problem with a university (or an employer) providing an oppertunity for an under represented group to know they are welcome to compeate on an equal footing. I don't have a problem with the employer (or university) attempting to recruit QUALIFIED applicants from an under represented group.

>> No.2469970

>>2469953
Are you implying that the entire environment isn't a form of indoctrination?

>> No.2469977

>>2469968
Jesus fucking tits, what the hell.

>> No.2469979

'Equality'
1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

'Equity'
1. justice according to natural law or right; specifically freedom from bias or favoritism

>> No.2470000
File: 34 KB, 350x263, sadbender.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2470000

>>2469949

I know

>> No.2470023

>>2469968
How about we let women who want to become an engineer apply to be an engineer and women who don't want to become an engineer don't apply to be an engineer. I mean, is it really that fucking hard to do? You just have to do... NOTHING. If she applies and doesn't get it, who fucking cares? Many men apply and also don't get it. She'll be equal that way, with the same perks and the same disappointments. The last thing you want to do is take gender over skill.

>> No.2470030

If I was running ...on lets say an engineering firm and I needed to hire an engineer. I know I sure as hell would want to hire the best applicant. If I interviewed a well qualified woman, she would receive a job offer from me. If the best applicant was a man, he would get the offer. Maybe I am not making a rational decision!
I'm bet I get a lot more men appling for the job. I'm ok with that too.

>> No.2470043

there are alot of women in the CS department.

Most of them are asians tho.

>> No.2470051

Surprising lack of butthurt in this thread.

>> No.2470068

>>2470023
I don't see anything thing wrong with a admissions person from a university science program going to an girls' high school and talking up their school. Letting the qualified girls know that the school would welcome them. Trying to get good applicants. If they do, that is great. If not, that is OK too. (Feel free to substitute "minority high school" for "all girls high school")

>> No.2470076

>>2470043
You think cultural differences?

>> No.2470085

>>2469947
2+2 is not the same as 4, but 2+2=4

>> No.2470089

>>2470030

The problem is if you're employing more than a certain amount of employees there are certain laws you have to oblige which can pretty much force your hand when it comes to hiring.

>> No.2470093

>>2470068
I don't see anything wrong with an admissions person SITTING ON HIS ASS, LETTING ANY MOTHERFUCKER WHO WANTS TO APPLY APPLY. I mean, unless he's not popular or something so he HAS to go around asking for applicants, but then he'd better to go any damn high school, not just a minority school. If everyone knows he's out there, then there's no reason to do anything.

>> No.2470095

>>2470089
What do you think about those laws?

>> No.2470099

>>2470068

That's fine. That would be an attempt to garner interest in science and engineering among young women. I doubt there's a single person here who doesn't wish there were more science-minded women in the world.

The problem for most seems to be affirmative action. That's only justified when there is an organized, systemic attempt to disenfranchise a certain group. That's NOT the case in the science professions--it's just a lack of interest.

By all means, do what you can before it's time for girls to apply to college. After that: it's not up to you.

>> No.2470105

>>2470089
It doesnt work like that. You can hire a minority janitor to make up for the fact that all your scientists are white (as long as you don't descriminate against a minority scientist applicant)

>> No.2470106

>>2470095

I think they're hypocritical and moronic, but I can understand the need for them when they were implemented.

>> No.2470110

>>2470105

That's very wrong. In fact you're much more likely to get in trouble if you do something like that.

>> No.2470125

>>2470093
Can I send you my resume? I am very good at sitting on my ass.

>> No.2470157

>>2470110

"Quotas are illegal in the United States, except on rare occasions when judges order them to correct blatant discrimation. Affirmative action works by setting flexible goals -- which are based on the percentage of qualified minorities and women in the region. A company that searches in good faith but fails to find qualified minorities or women is not penalized for their failure"
wwwdothuppidotcom/kangaroo/L-aaquotasdothtm

>> No.2470173

>>2469932
The problem is, people use the genders aren't equal studys to promote sexism, its fine that prehaps a majority of young males like cars instead of barbies, but when a boy wants to get a barbie their asshit parents will say soething like "You cant get that, boys just dont like that sort of thing", or "hurp durp, science says youll be happier with a car".

Even in schools, girls will do less exirsize then men for PE, I understand that there are physical diffrences, but is it really that hard to lift a dumbell 10 times instead of 5?


The problem is of course, retards that cant understand science.

>> No.2470189

>>2470099
So discrimination against men, but only when it comes to education, because anything else wouldnt be fair?

>> No.2470214

>>2469633
Because women must have the right to delude themselves into believing that they can help the mankind, study like hell and then discover that whole progress of mankind if pushed by few dozens of freaking geniuses and their research will change nothing the history of science and then be frustrated professionally, financially AND socially, just like men.

The end.

/thread

>> No.2470217

>>2470173
Aahahaha, this. In my gym class, all of the girls used to just sit together in the weight room, all taking turns passing around a 1 pound dumbbell so it looked like they were doing something. They just sat around and gossiped. I guess you could argue that they're raised like that, but they honestly and truly LIKE it, more than playing basketball or running the track. It excites them. Men, not so much generally. It has to be natural. These gender roles didn't come from nowhere.

>> No.2470251

>>2470157

Yes you have to show the good faith effort. Lets evaluate this. Let's say workers are ranked on a scale of 1-10 just for simplicity, 1 being terrible 10 being overqualified. For this position the minimum requirement is an 8. If you don't currently meet the "flexible goals," you are almost always going to be forced to hire a minority 8 over a non-minority 9 or 10.

You can spin it however you want but ultimately someone more deserving of a job is not hired.

>> No.2470254

>>2470189
>Implying we wouldn't also try to instill such interests in young men.

50% of your population is--due so some combination of cultural conditioning and statistical gender characteristics--is not pursuing careers in, and thus precluding possible contributions to what are arguably our most important areas of inquiry.

Ignoring the % of women who lack a quantitative aptitude, and only focusing on those who have the ability, but lack the interest--Yes, it is is the interest of EVERYONE to get those that are capable interested in math and science.

Again, we're talking about 50% of the population, not changing some tiny minority statistic so people can feel good about themselves.

>> No.2470560

>>2470254
You talking about giving 50% of the population an advantige in education, it would be better to give everyone equal education.

>> No.2470613

>>2470560

Accounting for a bias is not the same thing as having a bias. Someone in /sci/ should understand that.

It's not about offering a different, or better quality of education for girl, but rather making an effort to popularize certain professions than some may have dismissed due to forces beyond their control.

To the extend that culture and conditioning in to blame for some girls not even considering math and science, we might have to try a little harder to counteract those forces.

>> No.2470644

>>2470613
You don't need to do that, though. That's just how it is. There's essentially no need to change it. Just a want to change it.

>> No.2470649

>>2470613
>To the extend that culture and conditioning in to blame for some girls not even considering math and science, we might have to try a little harder to counteract those forces.

Why? Where will I get sammiches?

>> No.2470662

if you encourage JUST women, that is sexist

>> No.2470671

>>2470649
Sammich-making sexbots, friend.

>> No.2470709

>>2470662
>>2470649
>>2470644

I'll make it easier then. If you had a daughter, wouldn't you want her in an education system that recognizes she may have been conditioned to have an artificially low interest in math and science than she would otherwise have, and therefor tried to counteract those effects?

Are you saying we shouldn't try to counteract those influences--to the extend that they exist--in girls because they don't exist in boys, and addressing them would therefore be "sexist"?

If by 'sexist' you mean acknowledging discrepancies in culturally enforced, non-biologically contingent, gender roles, and trying to curb our biases--then yes, it's sexist.

>> No.2470734

>>2470709

bullshit...these programs don't address any of the issues you mentioned, they just say "girls do this!" and that is sexist....yes we should address those issues, telling girls what to do and giving huge grants for them to do it at levels far below men is sexist

>> No.2470777

>>2470734
I wasn't defending those programs.

>I don't have a problem with a university (or an employer) providing an oppertunity for an under represented group to know they are welcome to compeate on an equal footing.

I was talking about things like that--about institutions making additional efforts to "sell" careers in science and engineering. I do NOT agree with lowering the basket so girls can dunk, or giving them 4 point for shooting 3-pointers...so to speak.

>> No.2470814
File: 118 KB, 516x387, 1288506679903.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2470814

>>2470709
If you had a man-child would you like him to be in an education system that recognizes he may have been culturally conditioned toward violence and risking his life for money and to impress women, rather than exploiting that conditioning to lead him into the military or a dangerous construction job?

For fuck's sake, if you can't realize the amount of conditioning that goes into making young boys want join the armed forces you should stop bitching about how girls are conditioned to desire (and demand) emotionally satisfying work in safe environments.

fuck.

>> No.2470837

>>2470777
>>2470777

if what you say here is true, then give one example of the philosophy you stated above in action that isn't "lowering the basket".

pro-tip:it doesn't exist in public policy, the only place for it is the home

>> No.2470841

>>2470709
What if it wasn't being conditioned, but innate urges or due to her mental capability, not being able to become interested in science and math, again we get to the whole taboo nature vs nurture discussion, I believe we shouldn't interfere with somebody's future until we know, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that the underrepresentation of women in science and math is due to the social environment, and not nature.

>> No.2470874

>>2470841

problem is we already have a bunch of info saying it does have some biological basis(no proof this equals the quantity of discrepancy observed tho)....when you bring this up, liberals are like HUUUUUUURRRRRRPA DEEERRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPA.jpg

>> No.2470901

>>2470837

I guess Harvard, a private university, can't decide it wants to be an vocal advocate for drawing more women into science, and tailor literature to inspire both men and women to do so.

It sounds like your saying institutions should only release one kind of pamphlet, or use only one tactic not designed to appeal particularly well to either men or women. That's fine because everyone is being treated "equally".

But if you suddenly tailor your approach to advocacy to men and women, have two sets of pamphlets for instance, and use different rhetoric for different groups, then you've suddenly crossed the line?

No, I don't think making a rhetorical effort to advocate something to groups in different ways is lowering a basket.

Why do you insist on acting like I'm advocating preferential treatment, or affirmative action. Are you just pissed that people are doing a shitty job or using bullshit methods and therefore throwing out the whole premise?

If quotas aren't used to influence statistics, and the standards for entry remain the same, wtf is your beef? Are you saying altering standards is the ONLY way to get more women into the sciences? Damn, that's cynical.

>> No.2470906
File: 65 KB, 450x336, 1289864421149.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2470906

>>2470814
Men have always dominated the really dangerous job markets, like construction, military, factory workers, and some blue collar jobs. In fact, men have always dominated the blue collar industry, while women get all the social stuff. It is our lot in life.

Don't believe me? My sisters are in their mid to late teens now, and they have made money off babysitting and lifeguard duty. I have made my money off lawn cutting and snow shoveling.

Women don't know how good they have it....

>> No.2470912

>>2470901

i said show a place where it exists and you gave several hypothetical examples. you've clearly moved into lib-tard land, my friend

>> No.2470925

>>2470901

if any of the things you suggest here actually existed, and affirmative action and lower standards didn't exist, then yea the world would be great.....a bizzaro mirror of what it is now, but great

>> No.2470953

>>2470912
I then ask you if the fact that institutions may be using bullshit methods A) invalidates the entire premise B) indicates the futility of trying to get more women into math and science.

I wanted to know if that non sequitur was your rhetorical point because I never denied there are unfair, and ultimately destructive methods being used to court female scientists.

>> No.2470954

>>2470901

I think his beef is that 99% of all people who actively advocate for more women in science fields support "lowering the basket" as well. You may be part of the 1% that is not, who knows.

>> No.2470963

>>2470841

There is no point in arguing shit like this on 4chan or the internet for that matter.

"Hard Science" people frequently shit on "Soft Science" people but then tout shit like evolutionary psychology to justify their beliefs and defend their biases.

The truth of the matter is that most scientists are data driven, dogmatic, and highly resistant to challenging to status quo. The other problem is, many of these smart people see themselves as capable of objectively evaluating all their every day experiences.

In their minds, all the "data" they collect is free from bias because of their intelligence. However, life is not a well designed experiment where everything is controlled for.

That is to say, these "smart" people let confirmation bias run wild.

So lets make this clear, beyond certain outliers with extraordinary mental abilities, females who are given the same support and similar socialization as males can and do excel in the same fields, even females who are not given the same support and similar socialization manage to excel.


Also, OP is a dumbass. Science and Engineering are generally seen as having prestige that most primarily feminine occupations lack. Same with banking and Finance.

>> No.2470968

>>2470925
I agree. So wtf are people arguing about? That the libtard education establishment has it's head up it's ass? No shit.

Hell, in the US, we don't even teach math and science well as it is--TO ANYONE.

>> No.2470980

>>2470906

You might have a good read at >>2469874

>> No.2470994

Women have less grey matter related to cognition.

>> No.2470995

>>2470906
see
>>2470814
>girls are conditioned to desire (and demand) emotionally satisfying work in safe environments.

>> No.2470997

It's an industrial thing. If bankers want to make more loans they'll encourage women and minorities to 'catch up' and go to college or start businesses. When the military wants to kill more people you'll see "women can be soldiers too" ads. The list goes on.

>> No.2471015

>>2469633

Are women happy as heavy-weight boxers and army rangers? Men and women are distinct from each other in man ways, just because men want to fight doesn't mean women should too.

>> No.2471039

>>2471015
Are women happy studying science? Obviously not, since none of them want to.

>> No.2471051

dammit sci with your stupid anecdotes and preconceptions. Is this not the board dedicated to science?!

All this shit argument about "is it preconditioning cause girls don't get legos as kids" vs "they are naturally not interested cause evolution" could be solved with some fucking experiments (or at least meaningful observations and not fucktons of the # of girls that exist at your uni).

Set up a long term experiment wherein girls are raised essentially the way you raise boys. see what the results are.

Or for quicker results, look at the statistics for % scientist that are female across various cultures. if it varies a lot, there is a good chance it is cultural.

>> No.2471053

>>2471039
Maybe that's because men treat them like shit and create a hostile environment to learn and work in.

>> No.2471057

>>2471051
This has been done. For instance, was found that by themselves boys preferred toys like guns and cars while girls liked dolls.

>> No.2471062

>>2471053
>Maybe that's because men treat them like shit and create a hostile environment to learn and work in.

citation needed you fucking sexist

>> No.2471079

>>2471057
>>2471057

not doubting you but citation please?

>> No.2471092

>>2471053
I'd maybe let you get away with that wildly sexist statement maybe if you were talking about the construction industry or something, but this is fucking science we're talking about. Don't pull that bullshit.

>> No.2471094

In the US, we have a SOCIETAL deficiency in math and science. Do we just say that American are naturally predisposed to a low interest in such things and call it a day?

I prefer to ask one question: "Would our society, economy, and culture be better off with more math and science literacy and interest?"

If the answer is 'yes', then the biological or cultural explanations for our current deficiency seem besides the point. We should be for advocating math and science at ever corner. I don't give a shit if someone is biologically predisposed to be averse to reason or evidentiary thinking, I sure as hell want those things beaten into our collective heads regardless.

>> No.2471109

>>2471092
Lol, scientists are as bad as any neckbeard, probably worse because for a while women were actually flooding the computing field when there was money in it, there's never been the big bucks in research. Computing got an injection of women long enough that they had to adjust.

>> No.2471112

>>2471094
You're one of the few people in this country that sees it that way. Unfortunately, this issue has basically been humped to death by feminists needing to justify their outdated feminist beliefs somehow. They've taken over any logic that used to exist in this situation.

>> No.2471121

>>2471094

yea and the major malfunction is giving valuable and limited resources in science and engineering education to women at much lower standards than men, thereby excluding many men who could be doing more, better work than the women...sexist policies are screwing our country over bad, they don't have this bullshit in China

>> No.2471135

>>2471092
The nerd culture itself is res ipsa loquitur proof of sexism. Being "nerdy" or "sciency" is an extreme form of western masculinity. It's in the far corner on the graph of west-east male-female culture. If you want to attract more women to science you need to stop being so coldly rational and concerned about measurement and consider emotional truth and how your findings are influenced by your own biases and how they affect people before you release results.

>> No.2471137

any and all sex targeted rhetoric that exists in today's american society can be summed up thusly, "Women, if you have even the most basic math skills, we will give you a free ride in any science or engineering program you want" and this shit is sapping our already failing science and engineering base

>> No.2471179

>>2471135
>Mom! Look at what I learned today in Women's Studies!

Seriously. Stop with the "us against them" attitude. It only exists in your head. Get the fuck over it.

>> No.2471184

>>2471135
So in order to attract women to science we have to eliminate everything that makes science...science, which contradicts the very idea of increasing science literacy.

>> No.2471203
File: 57 KB, 310x487, fuck da police.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2471203

>>2471135
>>2471135

its called observation bias. already known, theres ways to correct for it.

cold rational machine-like autism FTW!!!

>> No.2471218

>>2471184
Yes, precisely. You need to stop being _fundamentally_ sexist. There are plenty of women in fields of science like anthropology because they do this. They don't feel the need to reject completely out of hand non-Western systems of knowledge like Chinese medicine or native American ontological hierarchies that have worked well for those cultures for thousands of years.

>> No.2471240

>>2471179
Stop telling women they can't join your club.

>> No.2471277
File: 154 KB, 336x350, 8020SP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2471277

>>2471135
>emotional truth

No. Just fucking NO.

All of my rage - love, anon.

>> No.2471279

>>2471218

nobody needs more women in science...what we all need is more of the most competent and efficient scientists possible....and news flash, TCM and native americans didn't get too far(lots of tcm is coming into western med bit by bit tho)

>> No.2471285

>>2471218
>>2471135

First to clarify, theres nothing wrong with your standard equality feminist (in fact, I have yet to meet a woman not in favor of a equality).

Its femi-nazi's like you that everyone hates. Your a bad liberal stereotype (inb4 you call me conservative, I'm not but you make rationale liberal people look bad).

Now here is the problem with your line of thought. At the core of science is a simple principal. "Do not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." If you truly want to find facts about the universe, you need to be cold and objective. You must take all caution to not skew results in favor of what you already think. What your saying is "Lets think about the how this will effect people and then hide the results accordingly." Well fuck you, the people deserve the truth, and science does not have to change to pander to people. Your whole "feminine science" would be a pseudo-science comparable to the likes of creationism; a set of bull shit principals designed to reinforce pre-existing notions.

>> No.2471294

>>2471285
DING DING DING DING

Somebody out there is THINKING! Over 9000 internets to you!

>> No.2471301

>>2471218
Troll?

- understanding the world
- respect for evidence
- logical consistency
- intellectual honesty
- peer review
- parsimony

That is science in a nutshell. This is what I mean by science education. Nail these down in our education system, and everything else will tend to fall in place.

Are there nuts, many of whom are leaders in the liberal arts-centric education establishment, that are ambivalent towards these values? Sure. However, all obvious opportunities for jokes aside, if you're saying women--not to mention the rest of us--are just plain incapable of buying into these things, then I guess there's not much else to say.

>> No.2471304

>>2471240
They can join. It's always open. They just don't WANT to join, and that's no one's fault but their own. Tell your women to grow a backbone.

>> No.2471346

The problem of equality disappears when you stop trying to compare apples to oranges.

Women will not be men. Men will not be women.

So long as they are free to choose what they wish to do and are free to pursue that wish... They are as free as men. I have yet to see any serious societal problem with how women are treated in America that isn't brought on by women themselves.

Intneresting side note... Why is it the porn industry, strip clubs and hooking scene are dominated by women... Where they forced into those positions? What about the men with these occupations. Also, what is the ratio, men to women, in these fields...

>> No.2471362

>>2471301
No, you're just convinced that you haven't made any mistakes. It has been demonstrated definitively that science moves in paradigms, which strongly implies institutional bias still determines outcomes. The paradigm shifts when the proponents of the old fad die and can no longer suppress younger proponents of the new fad. If science were truly "objective," as if that were a good thing anyway, then a provable fact contradicting consensus and would be accepted right away by everyone, yet it does not; these facts must wait until the old facts die with their "creators."

Peer review? You exclude from your "peers" the mass of non-white, non-male, non-Western peoples that make up the majority of the world. Give me a break.

>> No.2471407
File: 46 KB, 512x341, thisguy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2471407

>>2471362
>You exclude from your "peers" the mass of non-white, non-male, non-Western peoples that make up the majority of the world.

Pic related: Is he qualified to review publications in JAMA?
You think he could look over my Physics homework? It's just simple 2D kinematics...

>> No.2471412
File: 9 KB, 349x311, water.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2471412

>>2471362
I'm still convinced you're a troll, but I'll bite.

Why do you believe water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen?

The only way you can justify that belief is by appealing to the scientific values that I listed earlier. There is no "alternative" view of water worth considering, but you're free to try and find one.

Even though you're not a real person, the fact that people like you actually exist is not lost on me. It only goes to strengthen my belief in the need for an education system that inoculates young minds from your poison, especially young women who are probably more susceptible to your message.

>> No.2471434

>>2471412
I have a question for you to gauge you intelligence:

What is the relationship between a dog and a rabbit?

>> No.2471446

>>2471362
Also, scientists are the FIRST to admit ignorance. The conversation is always open to new evidence, and conclusions are always open to revision. It's the very antithesis of dogma, and arrogance.

>> No.2471483

>>2471446
Many scientists are not equipped to question the validity of the _method_ of science they follow. This, despite the fact that the process of doing "science" has changed dramatically over time.

Popper crafted his model of falsifiability to include things he, in his valuation, considered science and to exclude things that he felt were not. I suppose if he did that today it would be called altering the facts to fit the theory.

>> No.2471496

>Why is it considered progressive and pro-feminist to encourage women to be scientists? Isn't science just another form of labor? Isn't a laboratory just a fancy kitchen?

Because science is a field which employs logical reasoning and does not favor emotion, which has been a stereotypical quality of women for as long as people have had culture.

>In movies and TV shows and stuff, any time the writers want to show how "girls can be anything they want," they always use science as the first example of something girls can be. How about a fucking heavyweight boxer? Or a U.S. Army Ranger? Are those just not girly enough? Why not just say girls can be anything they want as long as it falls within an acceptable threshold of gender-neutrality. Great message, hypocrites.

Why the hell would you want them to suggest women go in to become violent and lowly? Just because these things were favored by males for generations does not mean they are jobs you should wish that women are saturated in.

>> No.2471514

>>2471483
That's absolutely true. Formal instruction in critical thinking in sorely lacking in almost any science curriculum. That doesn't invalidate the values inherent in skeptical inquiry, it just means we need to teach them better.

>> No.2471524

>>2471496
Actually, the lack of women working in coal mines is just as much proof of sexism as the lack of women in sciences. Science is usually used because people assume that mentally men and women are equal but tend to believe that physically they are not, despite all reason and evidence that they are. Women applying for firefighter jobs have done overwhelmingly well once arbitrary standards like being able to heft a giant hose or carry a person out of a building were dropped.

>> No.2471542

>>2471218

> They don't feel the need to reject completely out of hand non-Western systems of knowledge like Chinese medicine

because they study it as a cultural peculiarity and not as something to implement for public health

>> No.2471554

>>2471542
Yet when they treat Western science as a cultural peculiarity you all go ballistic.

>> No.2471556

>>2471542
Indeed, and if that person comes down with appendicitis, I'll bet my bank account that they'll opt to go to a western-style hospital.

>> No.2471568
File: 88 KB, 344x425, 1289528665386.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2471568

>>2471524
>arbitrary standards like being able to heft a giant hose or carry a person out of a building

I see what you did there.

>> No.2471576

>>2471568
Women used to be excluded from many jobs by forcing them to lift things that had nothing to do with job performance.

>> No.2471600

>>2471554
No one denies that at it's origin, science is a uniquely western invention--Greek to be specific. The point is that it works wherever you do it. An experiment done in Boston works the same as one done in Bangladesh--results are not culturally-contingent. That's why we don't use terms like 'Muslim Algebra' or 'Christian Physics' even though those cultures invented them in the first place.

>> No.2471614

>>2471600
Actually they do have "Islamic Science" and SURPRISE! It verifies the factuality of the Koran. Go figure.

>> No.2471615
File: 205 KB, 800x526, good joke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2471615

>>2471576
Jobs like lumberjacking, mining and strongman competitions?

>> No.2471621

>>2471615
Go somewhere else, troll.

>> No.2471641

>>2471135
>you need to stop being so coldly rational and concerned about measurement and consider emotional truth and how your findings are influenced by your own biases and how they affect people before you release results.
Are you suggesting that we withhold facts about the universe so some people will feel less uneasy about their lives?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Under that assumption we should start telling people that evolution is fake

>> No.2471643
File: 74 KB, 407x405, If-you-disagree-with-me-You-hate-women.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2471643

>>2471621
>hurrdurr, he disagrees with me therefore he is a troll

>> No.2471657

>>2471643
Sure, it was a coincidence he trolled with a picture of a misogynist anti-queer hard-right Objectivist.

>> No.2471673

>>2471657
Yes, yes it was actually. Only used the pic for the caption.

>> No.2471681

Many women ARE scientists
Biology, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, etc...
you name it.
With the exception of engineering, mathematics and possibly physics(although not as much as the other two)
Also the western culture doesn't view science as manly to whoever said that. They view scientist as weak nerd types who are socially handicap.
Then again the Western culture is retarded.

>> No.2471695

>>2469682

It's called being a hypocrite.
The opinion of a hypocrite is utterly worthless.

>> No.2471769

>>2471576

Such as?

I'm genuinely curious, because common lifting tasks that are entirely related to job performance are usually sufficient to exclude most women.

Even in an office environment you may have to carry a carton of paper reams for the photocopier, so you'd better be able to.