/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5345029]

>female scientists respond to accusations that women aren't as good as men in math and science
>say that they face discrimination in the industry because they're women
>and that they need affirmative action

Why can't I hold all this rage?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rtZCq83v92s

[Anonymous No.5345037]

>>5345029

Typical women having to resort to revealing their sexual organs to get attention.

[Anonymous No.5345047]

Discrimination is one theory, but few people substantially back up the claim with evidence. They may be conditioned to not like science and math or they may actually be bad at it.

[Anonymous No.5345053]

>>5345029

How is video supposed to get them any support?

There's so many stereotypes and they look ridiculous. If I were their boss, I would fire them.

[Anonymous No.5345071]

Question: Isn't it less profitable to hire women in general simply because of paid maternity leave?

[Anonymous No.5345117]

>>5345071
If they were somehow exactly as good as men, yes, statutory maternity leave would make women legally inferior employees.

It's ironic that laws ostensibly there to help women in fact make them worse as legal entities.

Of course, courts would say laws don't count and that the objective legal difference between men and women does not make women inferior, and that therefore hiring men in preference to them is discrimination.

[Anonymous No.5345121]

>psychology

[Anonymous No.5345124]

>>5345029

"Psychology is not a science" war on the comments.

It's like I never left /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5345125]

>woman neuroscientists

[Anonymous No.5345129]

>>5345029

Is the link to the video, or the parody of the video?

I honestly can't tell.

[Anonymous No.5345138]

This is a parody you morons.

The video they're parodying is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

[Anonymous No.5345146]

>>5345029

Why are none of the scientists black?

[Anonymous No.5345143]

>>5345117

>It's ironic that laws ostensibly there to help women in fact make them worse as legal entities.
The problem would be easily fixed if the maternity leave was paid by the state rather than the employer. It's one of those things were one must either do nothing or go the whole distance. But our society is addicted to half assed measures.

[Anonymous No.5345150]

>>5345143
>State should pay for maternity leave

Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.5345147]

There is a lot of presupposed bullshit in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5345153]

Why am I not allowed to be a slut when I'm a scientist? This misogyny is unfair. ;(

[Anonymous No.5345157]

>...a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
>implying women don't face discrimination in science

[Anonymous No.5345160]

>>5345143
No; the company would still have the administrative hassle of sorting out someone else to do the woman's job while she's on leave. She would still be a legally inferior person to employ.

Also, that would be yet another way taxpayers (mostly male) are forced to pay for benefits to women.

Not that men wouldn't be paying for women's time off if the company was forced to pay the leave anyway.

inb4 paternity leave; that's just all the more state interference in business, and still means people who don't want children or don't want to take leave for them will be paying (whether through their wages or their taxes) for those that do.

[Anonymous No.5345179]

>>5345150

Cry some.

>>5345160

That's minimal compared to the current situation. Again, could be fixed by paying a child bounty of some sort.

[Anonymous No.5345191]

>>5345160
so? a country cant function without new children. you are paying for the continued function of the country, its no different than most of the tax being payed., if you dont like go write a blog about how anarchy is the only good governing system.

[Anonymous No.5345198]

>>5345179
Doesn't solve the underlying problem that all that's being done is wealth redistribution, from the childless and those who seek to be productive while having children, to those who have been granted special privileges by the state as a reward for having children.

Also the fact that it's sexist and therefore unequal treatment under the law, illegal according to the laws and constitutions of many Western countries.

[Anonymous No.5345201]

>>5345191
Nah, people will have children anyway. We're not so desperate we need to pay people taxmoney to have them or face extinction.

[Anonymous No.5345205]

>>5345198

>Doesn't solve the underlying problem that all that's being done is wealth redistribution, from the childless and those who seek to be productive while having children, to those who have been granted special privileges by the state as a reward for having children.

The developed nations are having issues with birth rates. Encouraging more children is not the worst idea possible. The question is, do we as a society wish that women give up their careers to be mothers?

>Also the fact that it's sexist and therefore unequal treatment under the law, illegal according to the laws and constitutions of many Western countries.

Not in the slightest. Such a law would apply equally to pregnant men.

[Anonymous No.5345206]

>>5345198
people arnt equal. get over it.

[Anonymous No.5345221]

>>5345205
No, no, no. What you're talking about is using the taxpayers' money for social engineering. That does not come consequence free. There is no choice "we" have to make about what women ought to do.

>Such a law would apply equally to pregnant men.
When a pregnant FtM gets maternity leave, I'll believe you're doing more than making up facts.

>>5345206
Ironic that you would say that in defence of special treatment for one group at the expense of another in the name of equality.

[Anonymous No.5345228]

>>5345201
no, but we do need to pay then in order to insure the children arnt mentally handicapped becasue the parents were to poor to care for them properly.

[Anonymous No.5345238]

>>5345228
Paying people to have children is the worst way to ensure children are raised by people who care for them properly.

In my country, getting pregnant in your late teens is literally a career. Two or three children and the state if effectively employing you most of the way to retirement.

[Anonymous No.5345256]

Female mathematician here, and I don't give a shit about either of these videos or maternity leave.

[Anonymous No.5345257]

>>5345221

>No, no, no. What you're talking about is using the taxpayers' money for social engineering

No shit. That's the point of social programmes. Why else provide public schooling?

>There is no choice "we" have to make about what women ought to do.

As members of society, everything women do or do not is our choice. That is why certain societies have chosen that they go around in veils and get stoned for minor offences, and others have not.

[Anonymous No.5345262]

>>5345256
You should; it's thinks like them that stop women being taken seriously, and make people, reasonably, think women are less competent than men.

I mean, could it be more oxymoronic? "Women are as good as men, now give us quotas so we're equal to men without needing to be as good"

[Anonymous No.5345275]

>>5345257
>That's the point of social programmes. Why else provide public schooling?
No, the point of public schooling is to help children, not manipulate them into doing what's convenient for society. It is because we have good values that the two happen to be the same.

>As members of society, everything women do or do not is our choice.
Then my choice, as a member of society, and the choice I recommendatory society as a whole makes, is freedom, without forcing women by statute nor manipulating them with interventionist financial incentives (at the public's expense, of course) into a particular lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.5345278]

>>5345160
Taxpayers SHOULD help mothers out. Ensuring financial stability for families with children has a net benefit to society.

The problem is when companies are hurt by simply hiring women.

[Anonymous No.5345282]

>>5345275

>No, the point of public schooling is to help children

I suppose that explains why universal education got implemented precisely when it became convenient for society to have an educated workforce, rather than earlier.

>Then my choice, as a member of society, and the choice I recommendatory society as a whole makes, is freedom, without forcing women by statute nor manipulating them with interventionist financial incentives (at the public's expense, of course) into a particular lifestyle.

You are of course free to your choice, but I certainly hope the rest of us will give declining birth rates the consideration they deserve.

[Anonymous No.5345297]

>>5345278
There's a line between ensuring financial stability for children, and things like paying people for the sake of having children or making them inferior employees because they might.

That line is where the net benefit to society ends. Where things start to cost society.

[Anonymous No.5345307]

>>5345282
>universal education got implemented precisely when it became convenient for society to have an educated workforce
It did? Which historian are you reading?

>I certainly hope the rest of us will give declining birth rates the consideration they deserve
Spending the money of some to manipulate women into making choices they wouldn't of their own conscience, while reinforcing victimhood and entitlement complexes and gender politics, is not what anyone deserves.

Declining birthrates are not a problem you can legislate to solve.

[Anonymous No.5345321]

>>5345307
>It did? Which historian are you reading?
what does it matter? it started after the industrial revolution, this inst disputed. its common knowledge.

[Anonymous No.5345325]

>>5345297
You are assuming anyone out there actually mooches off the taxpayers to have a few weeks paid leave, and by "leave" I mean nausea and intense pain as your vagina is torn open.

No one does that. Paid maternity leave at its worst allows poor, smart people to breed while keeping poor, stupid people from going into the red.

[Anonymous No.5345331]

>>5345307
>Declining birthrates are not a problem you can legislate to solve.

and I personally see no issues with a declining birth rate. I think it will over all be better for society.

[Zsigmondys lemma No.5345336]

what if there just aren't as many smart women?

the evidence seems to point that way.

[Anonymous No.5345345]

>>5345321
So one thing happened after another, and to you that means they happened at the same time?

Forgive me for not knowing this supposedly common knowledge. If you do find any actual sources on it, please do let us know.

[Anonymous No.5345354]

>>5345325
>You are assuming anyone out there actually mooches off the taxpayers
How so?

>Paid maternity leave at its worst allows poor, smart people to breed while keeping poor, stupid people from going into the red.
People will have children if they want them anyway, so that's not a problem maternity leave is solving, and there's general benefits to stop other people going into the red, without regard for presence or absence of children.

[Anonymous No.5345361]

>>5345345
no, the people who started the second event directly lists the first event as the reason they are initiating the second event. that means the first event is the cause of the second event.

[Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o No.5345362]

>>5345336
>the evidence seems to point that way.
Oh really?
Where?

[Anonymous No.5345365]

>>5345354
What exactly are you arguing?

[Anonymous No.5345370]

>>5345331
Indeed. People are important, but we shouldn't have more people for the sake of more people, even forgetting the social engineering aspects of making such a decision.

People who complain about falling birthrates also forget about migration between Western countries, immigration from developing countries, and adoption from other countries.

>>5345336
Yup, but that leads to two questions:

a) Why?
>Answer: inferior culture and values, remnant from olden days when men were (even more so than today) the ones expected to make intellectual progress.

b) What to do about it?
>Answer: not give women special treatment and let them get normal values without expecting special treatment to work towards those values for them.

[Anonymous No.5345373]

I'm surprised that nobody posted this yet. We nurture a culture in which women are expected to be bad at math and science because we ridicule their interest in it when they're young as we're parenting them. It isn't an issue of men being repressive asshats. It's everybody's fault, even the mothers.

When I was young I got Knex and a computer for Christmas presents. My cousin, she got a (pink, hardly functional) bicycle (with streamers and a heavy steel frame, no gears) and a dollhouse. You'll never guess who is studying in a STEM field now.

I, for one, would kill to see more women scientists and engineers. It's really boring that every conversation about things that I'm interested in turns into a mens club.

[Zsigmondys lemma No.5345384]

>>5345373
everyone is expected to be bad at math in our culture. Not just women.

[Anonymous No.5345385]

>Neuroscience
>An actual science

Nope.tiff.

It's a social science.

[Anonymous No.5345382]

>>5345361
>directly lists
Where exactly? I'd like to hear them say so. Where did you hear them say so?

>that means the first event is the cause of the second event.
Well strictly speaking, it means the first event inspired people to do the second event. This isn't science; it's human choice, not automatic reaction, that we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.5345393]

>>5345365
That state-mandated maternity leave is a harmful waste of money.

I was also asking how you saw that assumption in what I said.

[Anonymous No.5345395]

Paid maternity leave does not increase birthrates.

[Anonymous No.5345402]

>>5345393
>That state-mandated maternity leave is a harmful waste of money.
Why?

>I was also asking how you saw that assumption in what I said.
I assumed what your argument was because you didn't make it explicit.

[Anonymous No.5345414]

>>5345402
>Why?
Because it's wealth redistribution and social engineering, both of which are bad economically.

[Anonymous No.5345421]

>>5345414
>redistribution and social engineering are bad
Why?

[Anonymous No.5345440]

>>5345414
>which are bad economically
Might you mean "bad morally"?

[Anonymous No.5345457]

>>5345421
They both distort the economy away from where it would be most productive by creating false incentives with unintended consequences.

>>5345440
No, although they are that too, and the moral objection should be the chief objection at least to the social engineering. But I thought the economic argument would go over better.

[Anonymous No.5345487]

>>5345457
>But I thought the economic argument would go over better.
Damn straight. I'm going to mock you hardcore if you try bring a moral argument up into this bitch.

>They both distort the economy away from where it would be most productive by creating false incentives with unintended consequences.
What is good for quarterly reports isn't necessarily good for humanity, obviously. The pros and cons of a regulation must be weighed.

For example, it's profitable to dump toxic waste into a river, and that is what companies would do if not for regulation. I hope you won't now argue that such things wouldn't happen because humans are moral.

[Anonymous No.5345490]

>>5345457

You misspelt "correct for market externalities, maximising social welfare."

[Anonymous No.5345499]

>>5345414
>both of which are bad economically.
But both of them benefit the economy

[Anonymous No.5345505]

Women have XX chromosomes, so some recessive alleles aren't expressed, while men have XY chromosomes, Y chromosome being short => every allele of X chromosome is expressed.
That's genetic basis for difference in variance between men and women.
Evolutionary it makes sense: males compete with each other (and best phenotypes are selected) while women ensure species stable survival.

To be a good sciencist one has to be creative in a special way, and that correlates (hypothetically) with significant deviation from the mean in some phenotype parameters.

So there are more men among good sciencists (engineers, programmers, etc) partly because of genetic reasons.

[not him No.5345514]

>>5345490
>externality
I just learned a new, very useful word.

[Anonymous No.5345525]

>>5345487
>I'm going to mock you hardcore if you try bring a moral argument up
On what grounds? Or just ad hominem?

>What is good for quarterly reports isn't necessarily good for humanity
>The pros and cons of a regulation must be weighed
You're implying that in this case profitability and the good of humanity fall on opposite sides of the argument. But you're not presenting an argument about why.

(If I were a cynic, I'd say you deliberately left it at implication so you wouldn't be called upon to offer reasoning.)

>it's profitable to dump toxic waste into a river, and that is what companies would do if not for regulation
No it's not and no it's not. Since when is suing for civil harm a regulation?

[Anonymous No.5345532]

>>5345490
Hm?

>>5345499
How?

[Anonymous No.5345554]

>>5345373
>I'm surprised that nobody posted this yet.

Maybe that's because it's fucking retarded.

Attempts in switching nurturing methods consistently results in failure. Kids end up hating what you're doing and being less happy. Some basic differences are innate, not taught, such as the mechanical-social distinction that is broadly speaking more prevalent across the genders (and demonstrated as babies prior to such "nurturing"). People should be equal and able to pursue their interests, but the fact that more males are interested in engineering is not a "problem" that needs to be solved by forcing more females into the field to the detriment of males. Same thing goes if they'd start doing the same for professions dominated by females. Having an imbalance is perfectly fine so long as the minority is on equal terms with the majority.

It's also notable that the more equal a society becomes, such as in my native country of Sweden, the wider the gender-gap in professions like Engineering becomes. It isn't an issue of upbringing. When people feel there's a _need_ to fight for their right to be a certain profession it gets closer to a balance, but with actual equality people just do what they really want to do.

For reference I am quite the effeminate faggot, not some macho MRA shit, but we really shouldn't pretend that isn't the case out of political motivations. Science isn't supposed to be an aid to creating some strange dating-service for you just because you can't find mutual interests with non-STEM women.

[Anonymous No.5345573]

>>5345554
>I am quite the effeminate faggot, not some macho MRA shit
>tfw effeminate faggot MRA

For reference, I'm not the anon you were replying to and I agree with you on equal terms not equal numbers.

[Anonymous No.5345580]

>>5345554

Not who you are quoting but I agree that nurturing methods don't work.

However, I'd argue that in the US, we've created a culture that "nurtures" the distinction between males and females more than is natural. Not a woman, but I know several that would agree.

[Anonymous No.5345590]

>>5345580
Not who you were replying to, or a woman, or an American, but I agree and think that's true for all the Western world.

Equal terms should apply to nurturing children, instead of fostering gender roles.

[Anonymous No.5345611]

>>5345525
>On what grounds?
Moral arguments are often just arguments for things people haven't yet rationally justified in their own heads yet. I'm not going to think for you so saying "my claim is right, because it is just right" won't go over well.

>You're implying that in this case profitability and the good of humanity fall on opposite sides of the argument.
What? Are you saying that I'm saying that they are never the same thing? Because that is obviously not true. What I am saying is that what is profitable doesn't always serve the greater good. Either non-profit organizations or the government apply pressure that wouldn't otherwise exist to better serve the greater good or just let greater good go un-served. It's as simple as that.

>Dumping toxic waste into a river is not profitable.
Yes it is, and obviously so. If one lets the river takes the waste away then the company doesn't have to spend money on disposing of it in a sustainable fashion. It harms the company in the long term because it harms everyone, but the burden is spread across everyone, not just the company producing the waste, so it is a net gain for the company.

Companies are selfish, almost by definition. A non-selfish company is not as likely to survive as a selfish company. Pressure must be applied to prevent such selfish companies from burdening everyone else with their externalities.

[Anonymous No.5345667]

>>5345573

Yeah, I simply believe in Meritocracy and equality. Not bullshit like 80+% of applicants for Police school being men, but losing their placements to less qualified women simply in the name of Gender Equality. How people don't see that as incredibly hypocritical and contradictory to the very notion of equality is beyond me, but then again across the pond there's that whole 'Affirmative Action' thing.

>>5345580
>a culture that "nurtures" the distinction between males and females more than is natural.

Which is of course completely possible, such as when it was reinforced by simply not educating girls beyond a basic level because it was presumed as pointless. That's obviously not natural, but claiming that babies on their first days of life are showing "nurtured" traits is pretty damn.. Creationism-esque. Needing for the conclusion to be true irrespective of results etc. I think there's clearly something of a curve involved here, though steeper when very unequal, as shown in Scandinavia where the gap is widening a bit more again, with the X-axis being equality and the Y-axis being balanced professions.

[Anonymous No.5345682]

>>5345336
There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120+ than women, and there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170+ than women.

[Anonymous No.5345695]

No such thing as a female scientist.

[Anonymous No.5345713]

>>5345682

And yet the IQ scores aren't radically out of balance, as men also have a lot more of lower-than-average scores. Women are societal stability; men are expendable resources betting on making gains. Often failing, sometimes succeeding.

[Anonymous No.5345720]

>>5345713
>men are expendable resources

feminism and the disposable male still in action. women are the least stable people there are, they bleed every month and even on non hormonal days they are still irrational and emotional wrecks.

women have contributed nothing to society or human civilisation.

[Anonymous No.5345751]

>>5345138
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Oh garsh.
This fucking world, man. This fucking world...

[Anonymous No.5345750]

>>5345720
>feminism and the disposable male still in action.
>women are the least stable people there are

Your opinions on their emotional state has nothing to do with societal stability. If your tribe sends out a thousand warriors out of a population of five thousand and they get utterly defeated in battle you can recover rather quickly if they were men, but it would cripple your tribe for a longer time if they were half women. That leaves your whole gene-pool exposed to extinction through attrition.

If anything feminists often argue that reality is not such, since it displays gender differences useful for our survival. Prior to civilization a majority of males died in combat. They were relatively speaking "disposable". That isn't a value-judgment on their worth as human beings, just as a pragmatic resource for their situation. Men became somewhat less disposable the more of a stable structure developed.

[Anonymous No.5345759]

>>5345750
those are some big words for a woman. please invent something worthwhile so your gender has an excuse not to be replaced by sex robots and artificial wombs.

[Anonymous No.5345767]

>>5345750
>societal stability
In today's world, with the population being as high as it is? I don't think so, Tim.

[Anonymous No.5345794]

>>5345767
Oops, didn't read the rest of your post. My male mind is prone to tuning out women after so long.

[Anonymous No.5345799]

>>5345767
>In today's world, with the population being as high as it is? I don't think so, Tim.

See:
>Prior to civilization a majority of males died in combat.
>Men became somewhat less "disposable" the more of a stable structure developed.

We're all relatively irrelevant now, but population was just one example as to the roots of such a difference. Like I said, both variations have their advantages and it's useful for a species to be able to have both at once.

Oh well. Here's to hoping genetic engineering has future generations all jacked-up to the highest potential soon enough.

[Schaiffe !zribfvVT8o No.5345809]

>>5345759
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html

And it is easier to replace men.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1198132/Ethical-storm-flares-British-scientists-create-art
ificial-sperm-human-stem-cells.html

:)

Let me know how that ignorant sexism works out for you.

[Anonymous No.5345814]

why do they need to look 'sexy' in a lab ?

[Anonymous No.5345815]

>>5345814
Validation stemming from a low sense of self-esteem, duh.

[Anonymous No.5345818]

>>5345814
Because I always want to look sexy.

[Anonymous No.5345823]

>>5345814
Wrong question. The real question is "why are you not allowed to look sexy in a lab?" and the answer is patriarchic oppression.

[Anonymous No.5345829]

>>5345823
But that's how you answer every question!

[Anonymous No.5345831]

>>5345823

The answer is "Because looking sexy tends to go hand in hand with not being suitably safe."

[Anonymous No.5345878]

I think it goes a whole lot deeper than intelligence if you're comparing men and women. A lot of what it boils down to is temperment and personality differences between the sexes. Do you know why you tend to see men accomplishing more in society? It's because men are far more likely to become OBSESSED with things. After a certain intelligence level, your IQ does really do much more for you. What really separates successful scientists or performers, or artists is their willingness to become so immersed in something and devote so much time doing it that they attain a level of mastery far outside of the norm. How many women do you know with that type of personality? Probably not many. The general rule seems to be that women are more interested in people, men are more interested in things. I guarantee this has a lot to do with it.

[Anonymous No.5345888]

>>5345878
Makes sense mostly.

>After a certain intelligence level, your IQ does really do much more for you.

Did you mean the opposite?

[Anonymous No.5345938]

>>5345888
No, I mean exactly what I wrote. There's no question that it would take a certain baseline level of intelligence to be a very successful scientist or what have you but after a certain point those extra IQ points won't really make that much of a difference, if we're talking about success anyway. In the book Freakanomics (or was it outliers? I can't remember), the author talks about how there's an optimal level of height necessary to be a pro basketball player but above that height the extra inches don't do much more for you, others factors become more important. I'm willing to bet intelligence is largely similar.

[Anonymous No.5345958]

>>5345938

You wrote:

>your IQ does really do much more for you

Read that sentence very closely and try and understand where the confusion might come from.

I was more than content to catch your general drift, but you have worded that poorly.

[Anonymous No.5345977]

I would like to suggest the possibility of considering child bearing as a public good, like fireworks displays or reducing pollution.

[Anonymous No.5346018]

>>5345143
Well what if we simply:
A. Provided paid maturnaty leave for all couples with kids, then cut it out of already existing daycare services like kindergarten

B. But an extra tax on feminine products like makeup and tampons in order not to discriminate unfairly for gender

This would work for everyone, wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.5346026]

>>5345554
>mfw I read that wall-o-text and it didn't even refute what he quoted.

Log off your community library pls

[Anonymous No.5346032]

>>5345814
Because if they where naturally sexy they'd be mathematicians

[Anonymous No.5346055]

>>5345157

That's not discrimination in science, it's discrimination in hiring.

So, no. You're wrong.

[Anonymous No.5346070]

>>5345373
>I'm surprised that nobody posted this yet

Nobody has posted it because it's stupid. Toy makers and vendors don't order kids to like what they tell them to like. They do extensive customer evaluations with all their toys and produce and market the toys to which kids respond the most.

Boys and girls get the toys they get because the feedback they supply in the evaluations indicates that they like them.

Experiments in which researchers present newborn babies with a picture of a gear and a picture of a face suggest that gender differences are innate and biological and not learned.

There are exceptions but most people fit into their gender role.

[Anonymous No.5346086]

>>5345809

It doesn't matter what's "easier".

Someday, relationships will be unnecessary for both genders.

Plan your suicide accordingly.

[Anonymous No.5346120]

Alright kiddies, science time.

IQ tests, performance-based scholarships, and basically every other intelligence/scholastic test have shown that the variance (not the mean) in performance among men is greater than among women. This is a fact. Chalk it up to culture if you like (though environment is clearly not everything -- see below), but this observation simply cannot be disputed. It's also not a consequence of institutional sexism, because no IQ test has been devised that has consistently given an equal or higher variance for women while keeping equal mean.

This would explain the gender gap seen in science: men are just more likely to have the genius-level IQ required to win the Nobel prize. By the same reasoning, men are more likely to be mentally retarded -- which is also a demonstrable fact. The overwhelming majority of people institutionalized for mental retardation are men.

Now, the difference in variance isn't large by any means. But when we're talking about statistical extremes, like IQ > 160 and IQ < 50, small differences in variance make a big difference.

There's a plausible genetic factor that can at least partly explain this observation. Fact 1: X chromosomes have a disproportionately large number of genes expressed in the brain. Fact 2: Men have one X, and women have two Xs. Put two and two together: for intelligence-related genes on the X, variance for men will be greater than for women by simple probability.

[Anonymous No.5346135]

>>5345611
>Moral arguments are often just arguments for things people haven't yet rationally justified in their own heads yet.

... so ad hominem attacks?

Your gist is that, because the person you're arguing with cares about morality, this makes him unable to establish a stance in an argument. You're attacking him rather than his position.

[Anonymous No.5346141]

>>5345029
>Psychology
>A science
>not even for a moment

[Anonymous No.5346147]

>>5345831
Case in point - open-toed shoes when you're working with rocks or superacids.

[Anonymous No.5346204]

I think that psychology debate in the comments gave me cancer. Even more that the one with more upboats was agreeing that it is a science.

[Anonymous No.5346276]

>>5346055
>Implying one can do science without being hired
>Implied one can study science without being admitted to school

[Anonymous No.5346291]

>>5346276
>Implying one can do science without being hired
Yes, that is exactly what's being implied

and it's true

[Anonymous No.5346348]

>>5345157
The only science in this whole thread. GJ.

[Anonymous No.5346356]

>>5345611
>Moral arguments are often just arguments for things people haven't yet rationally justified in their own heads yet.
"Often"? So you would mock mine even if they weren't?

>What I am saying is that what is profitable doesn't always serve the greater good. Either non-profit organizations or the government apply pressure that wouldn't otherwise exist to better serve the greater good or just let greater good go un-served. It's as simple as that.
What is this "greater good"? It's sounding awfully like "the direction I personally would like society to move in", or even a moral argument.

>Yes it is, and obviously so.
No it isn't, and I just explained why it isn't, which makes it literally obvious, not just obvious in a rhetorical sense as you were using the term, that it isn't.

>It harms the company in the long term because it harms everyone
>but the burden is spread across everyone
>so it is a net gain for the company
Wut. Harming yourself can be a net gain as long as you harm others more?

>A non-selfish company is not as likely to survive as a selfish company.
And quite rightly so. I'd rather a selfish company that charges me for, say, ice cream every time I want one than a generous company that bankrupts itself giving them out free because the CEO and the shareholders are just so selfless.

>Pressure must be applied to prevent such selfish companies
It must, must it? What (presumably not moral, because they're mockery-worthy) argument do you have for that?

[Anonymous No.5346432]

>>5345157

This is both worrisome and significant. Clearly the mere conscious profession of gender neutrality is practically worthless.

I'll try to remember to use double-blind methods when I'm ever in a position of power.

[Anonymous No.5346445]

how can they suffer discrimination if they're 50% of the population?
>not a minority
>case dismissed

[Anonymous No.5346487]

>>5346291
>Implying you have a particle accelerator comparable to LHC

[Anonymous No.5346499]

are we raging yet?
http://www.thegloss.com/2012/11/12/career/bullish-life-men-are-too-emotional-to-have-a-rational-argu
ment-994/

[Anonymous No.5346508]

>>5345157
god, this reminds me of the fucking cis gendered crap
not saying that this article is that, but man it makes me angry
all the "check your privilege" hypocritical nonsense

[Anonymous No.5346511]

>>5345117
>>5345071

Are you suggesting that reproduction is not a worthwhile social expense? Especially as /sci/ likes to think intelligence is hereditary? Shouldn't you be encouraging the smart science professional females to reproduce?

[Anonymous No.5346523]

>>5346511
Society in general doesn't encourage intelligent people to produce, much less females
That's a deeper rooted ideological problem that can't be alleviated by who pays for them to be pregnant

[Anonymous No.5346530]

Women = Fail.

The sooner society faces up to this fact this and drops the expectation of equal achievement between the sexes the better.

[Anonymous No.5346542]

>>5346530
if you follow this logic far enough, it leads to more intelligent people being objectively worth more than less intelligent people, which is intuitively wrong
Or, I'd like to believe it isn't right, at any rate, there are so many people who are more intelligent than me

[Anonymous No.5346541]

>>5346530

Truth.

[Anonymous No.5346544]

>>5346523

And yet not offering paid maternity leave for smartypants females would surely provide another barrier to reproduction, now wouldn't it. All the misogynists want the females to be as productive and dedicated to their work as males ... so obviously they can't be taking time off work to reproduce. And yet these same people bemoan the rapid multiplication of the stupids and the low birth rates of the intelligent and successful...

[Anonymous No.5346546]

>>5346445
The same way they can be raped (socially acceptable for the aristocracy until the mid-18th century) or beaten (mid-20th century) or married off by their fathers (19th century).

They're physically weaker and socially forced into a position of inferiority. White men have most of the power, same as they always had, but more than that society directly dictates women are inferior (see >>5345157 ).

[Anonymous No.5346551]

>>5346542

I said nothing about a person's worth only that we shouldn't expect everyone to reach the same level of achievement.

[Anonymous No.5346552]

>>5346542

It's wrong in the sense that "it takes all kinds". A society composed entirely of Einsteins would not be productive or functional. The world needs ditch-diggers too.

[Anonymous No.5346556]

>>5346544
who's talking about whether or not women should be given paid maternity leave?
I thought we were talking about who pays for it.

[Anonymous No.5346557]

If they were good enough they'd be there already. Since they need men to hand them it on a plate, it's hardly "equality" is it?

The reason there are hardly any female scientists is the same reason there are hardly any female politicians, investment bankers, military officers, surgeons, architects, industrialists, software magnates and composers. They aren't cut out for hard work. They're much better off latching on to the aforementioned men and using them to work their way up the social ladder - because that's literally all they care about.

[Anonymous No.5346561]

>>5346551
it's just a logical path
if women are objectively inferior, objective inferiority exists and therefore people can be objectively ranked etc.

[Anonymous No.5346558]

>>5346530

Don't worry brah, you'll get a girlfriend one day.

[Anonymous No.5346563]

>>5346557

>if they were good enough, they'd be there already

Yeah man, after being under the bootheel for tens of thousands of years, they totally should be all caught up after a couple generations.

[Anonymous No.5346567]

>>5346445
>>5346546
The same way 50% of the population can be the ones forced to die in wars, expected to work for their livings, and expected to die the the sake of others in disasters.

>>5346557
>tfw I'll never be able to live the latching on to a man lifestyle

[Anonymous No.5346574]

>>5346563

If they were equal they wouldn't be "under the bootheel" in the first place.

There is literally nothing stopping women from doing anything (aside from certain physical jobs). In fact, most things work in favor of them and even then they aren't happy.

[Anonymous No.5346580]

>>5346561
So? The objective inferiority of some people is no reasons the law shouldn't treat people equally.

>>5346563
Apart from "under the bootheel" being wrong, perhaps they'd catch up better if they actually tried, instead of expecting special treatment to do the work so they don't have to?

[Anonymous No.5346593]

>>5346574

The disadvantage began in the distant past when physical strength was the sole determinant of authority. For the tends of thousands of years of human hunter-gatherer civilization before the advent of agriculture, women had no chance to wrest the advantage because women are, in general, physically less capable than men. By the time we started building cities and it was possible to gain authority and influence through other means like wealth or social rank, men were already firmly in control, and made sure the status quo continued. Christ, even in the US women's suffrage is less than a century old.

You're a self-deluding misogynist. You ignore the reality of history to reinforce your own prejudice.

[David Parker No.5346597]

The problem is that it isn't equal opportunity being looked at here but equality itself. Equal opportunity simply means that women be given an opportunity on an unbiased field, but gender politics has forced the unbiased field to be skewed in the pursuit of equality.

[Anonymous No.5346599]

>>5346580
>The objective inferiority of some people is no reasons the law shouldn't treat people equally.
I'm not even in this argument, I'm just saying certain claims lead to things that seem intuitively incorrect
Don't jump to conclusions

[Anonymous No.5346600]

>>5346597

When things are unequal, action must be taken to make them equal. Simply declaring a situation equatable does not make it so.

If a scale has 2 weights on one side, and 1 of the same weight on the other, does simply taking your finger off it create equality? Or is some action required to shift the balance to center?

[Anonymous No.5346602]

>>5346593

Thanks for the (warped) history lesson.

>You're a self-deluding misogynist. You ignore the reality of history to reinforce your own prejudice.

And you're ignoring current reality to reinforce your self entitlement.

Off the top of my head, there are about 10 jobs women are legally prevented from doing and I guarantee no woman would want to do them anyway. The rest are open. Certain employers have to employ a certain amount of women, so do government agencies. There's nothing stopping women from doing anything in academia or 99 percent of jobs, yet they still find room to complain.

Men have handed women everything on a plate (including suffrage, voting rights, education, equal pay) throughout history in one way or another and you're still complaining.

[Anonymous No.5346603]

You have 10 seconds to name 3 female mathematicians or physicists or engineers without googling.

I'll even let you use marie currie.

[Anonymous No.5346604]

>>5346542

THAT is your problem with his statement?

Of course more intelligent people are statistically worth more than unintelligent people: they have a greater chance of having a better influence on the rest of humanity. But even discounting that part to avoid double counting their net moral worth, how could intelligent humans *not* be worth intrinsically more than less intelligent humans/beings? We care less about animals, crazy people, retards, and people who watch reality TV than about baseline humans. (It's kind of hard to get a objective intrinsic measurement on super-baseline humans because they tend to be exemplified by their work, so double-counting is inevitable).

[Anonymous No.5346611]

What I don't get is how there are more women in higher education than men, but they still claim there's inequality in academia
how does that work?

[Anonymous No.5346624]

>>5346604
>Of course more intelligent people are statistically worth more than unintelligent people
I'm not talking about statistics
I'm saying that his statement leads to people being objectively worth more in every facet
How can you measure intelligence on such a linear scale?
There are artists, musicians, writers and soldiers, to name a few, who influence the rest of humanity many times over the vast majority of scientists who are objectively more intelligent people
The value of a human being =/= their intelligence
I hardly think you can contest that statement

[David No.5346625]

No, we don't. Just because two weights are heavier than one doesn't make them inherently better or worse, just different.

[Anonymous No.5346623]

>>5346603
Wasn't Currie's daughter also a physicist? That's 2.

[Anonymous No.5346629]

>>5346600

If you flip a weighted coin and then decide to stop, why does switching to a balanced coin require further action?

The playing field is level, the chance of either side landing face up is 50%.

In math and science, there are right and wrong answers. If women can get things right, problem solved.


Put affirmative action policies in place in these areas if you want to. Just be sure to plan your funeral ahead of time when you land an ER doctor who fucks up your treatment because she doesn't belong there or when a treatment for your cancer doesn't come in time to save your life because the research has been retarded by people who should have studied history.

[Anonymous No.5346633]

>>5346599
Sorry. My view is that it's not incorrect that some people are worth more (and that the view that it isn't is largely an emotive one), but that that doesn't imply the kinds of things one might assume, like special treatment for those of more worth.

[Anonymous No.5346646]

>>5346603
Ada Lovelace, Hypatia, Emmy Noether
or I could mention some of my college professors, several female mathematicians there

[Anonymous No.5346651]

>>5346597

As >>5345157 shows, a level playing field is insufficient to eliminate sexism.

>>5346611

"academia" != "the sciences". There are far fewer women in the physical sciences than men, and in all fields they are paid less for the same work (about half of the disparity is due to actually working less) and have less advancement opportunities (see comment link above).

[Anonymous No.5346654]

>>5346633
well, I agree. In fact, if you try and claim that it is, you eventually end up at some awful nihilistic conclusion

[Anonymous No.5346648]

>>5346593
>even in the US women's suffrage is less than a century old
Yeah, and how recently is it that men were last conscripted and killed in wars made by governments women used their precious votes to create?

You are a self-deluding misandrist, and you ignore reality and contemporary history to reinforce your own prejudice.

[Anonymous No.5346659]

>>5346651
I understand that there isn't equality in sciences, but that doesn't answer my question

[Anonymous No.5346670]

>>5345157
>Women are less capable than men
>Everyone knows this and behaves accordingly

What's the problem?

[Anonymous No.5346666]

>>5346629

You're either autistic or have never had a job. There are many, many factors that affect job performance aside from providing the "right" or "wrong" answers. If you come into work every day, and encounter hostile male coworkers, how do you suppose that affects your productivity?

If you're struggling with a subject in school, and need help, and find the professors just don't have the time or the inclination to help you the way they might if you were male, how do you suppose that would affect your grades?

Claiming the workforce is anything like a "level playing field" is either profoundly naive or intellectually dishonest. Interactions between people are EVERYTHING and influence EVERY ASPECT of life and work. Given the level of contempt for women shown in this thread and on this board in general, it's pretty plain the interactions between males and females in a science-type work environment aren't going to be very chummy. Men outnumber the women and view them with hostility. Then they have the nerve to crow about how women don't seem to perform as well...

[Anonymous No.5346677]

>>5346651

>and in all fields they are paid less for the same work

Sorry. Nope. No company, university or government institution is going to pay a woman less for the "same work". They aren't going to risk a multi million dollar lawsuit, fines and a load of negative media attention by cheating someone out of a small bit of money.

[Anonymous No.5346682]

>>5346651
Not hiring women has been shown ITT to be reasonable given things like maternity leave. Women are also more likely to sue employees and, because of their special treatment in education, less likely to be worth the qualifications they've been granted.

Moreover, what solution do you propose to this apparent sexism in hiring, and how do you know the costs involved will be worth the scientific progress they will prevent?

[David No.5346684]

Given that people have different levels of ability in things (this requires no support, by the way, don't even bother) and that the traits exhibited by living creatures are determined by their genetic makeup, the assumption that a different genetic makeup would result in different skills is a fairly short leap. Given that, and the common knowledge that men and women aren't the same thing, one can assume that men and women share different sets of abilities( this says nothing about anyone specific, just the norm over billions of trials), so the fact that men and women are, to a small degree, generally found in different fields, is unsurprising. Women can multitask, man have better special interpretation. One is not better than the other, but they are different.

[Anonymous No.5346686]

>>5346666
>If you're struggling with a subject in school, and need help, and find the professors just don't have the time or the inclination to help you the way they might if you were male, how do you suppose that would affect your grades?
There's been studies done which show male students are treated more harshly than female ones.

[David No.5346692]

Oh, and women actually outnumber men after a few years. Men die more in all parts of life, you see.

[Anonymous No.5346695]

>>5346677

Work in a restaurant sometime, and you'll learn first hand how large companies cheerfully ignore labor laws, even at risk of lawsuit. Why? Because lawsuits aren't free. Your average worker doesn't have the resources to take on a big company, which has vastly greater resources and experience in fighting that kind of battle. On the rare occasion a lawsuit is filed AND successful, the money lost to damages and settlements is less than the money that was gained by flouting the law. It's just part of the cost of doing business. Don't be so bloody naive.

[Anonymous No.5346703]

There's something else, too.

Women are only judged on how they look. I don't give a fuck if you're an All Souls academic, I'll base my opinion of you on how attractive you are. Women know this, which is why they spend thousands on all manner of skin and hair products in an attempt to make themselves as attractive to men as possible.

You're worth more looking pretty than you are doing work. That's just the way it is. Do you really think these guys who work in offices and in banks hire young pretty secretaries for their administrative abilities? Of course not.

[Anonymous No.5346711]

>>5346624

You're talking about large groups of people. Either you're using statistics or you're using stereotypes and guesswork.

Intelligence is indeed only one of hundreds of parameters which make up the value of a human being, and one almost entirely shielded off by influence, but by your argument, shouldn't women still be worth less because they've also produced less than 5% of world-class art, inventions and discoveries?

No, it's just the premise that's wrong. Women are held back by society, not by their own mental capacity. People can't be measured by their influence if there's discrimination.

[Anonymous No.5346712]

>>5346695
If this were true, why would lawyers not be begging employees to come forward with their discrimination lawsuits, offering to work for free and only take payment out of the (inevitable, if the laws are being ignored so flagrantly?) winnings.

Not to mention that if women did do the same work for less, a company that hired all women would simply but all others out of business.

[Anonymous No.5346715]

>>5346684

Where the wheels fall off your argument is where you conflate the difference between men and women to genetics. There is no fundamental genetic difference between males and females. Barely any between individual humans.

[David No.5346718]

I find that to be woefully misinformed. Business exists to make money. Give a business a chance to make more money, and they will take it, regardless of how "pretty" you are. It may be an advantage, but it isn't the entire game.

[Anonymous No.5346722]

>>5346715

2/10

[Anonymous No.5346723]

>>5346695

>Work in a restaurant sometime

No thanks. I've had my share of shit jobs and I don't need any more.

>hand how large companies cheerfully ignore labor laws

A place selling food and employing teenagers isn't a large company. It's a small business. Even if it's a chain, it's not going to be a massive employer.

Gone are the days where positions are advertised with separate male and female rates of pay. You'd have to be in your 50s to remember that. You're telling me that someone applies for a job, works there and gets paid less week in week out than their male counterparts for doing exactly the same work? Companies actually plot to pay women less?

You're a fool.

[Anonymous No.5346735]

>>5346712

It is true. I experience it every day, and have experienced it at every restaurant I've ever worked at. It's endemic to the industry, which is a very large one. We are not paid minimum wage for work we do when not taking tables, we are not given breaks according to the requirements of the law. Last year, someone blew the whistle on my restaurant about those breaks; for a few months after, we got them the way we were supposed to. Once the hubbub died down, things went right back to the way they were.

You are naive and inexperienced. I work for Darden Concepts, the largest operator of restaurants in the world, and a Fortune 500 company. They break the law thousands of times every day, against thousands of workers, every day. I hate to break your starry-eyed bubble, but this is just par for the course.

Lawyers may be rapacious, but surely you understand that the fact that a law has been broken does not guarantee a just ruling in court? That many people, even if they WERE approached by a lawyer (I've never heard of any of the hundreds of people I've worked with being approached, unsolicited, by a lawyer), would deem it more trouble than it was worth and rightly fear for their job? Most of us live paycheck to paycheck. We can't afford an interruption of income. I'm dreadfully sorry but the law, and lawyers, do not quite work the way you think they do.

[Anonymous No.5346740]

>>5346666

This just isn't true anymore, at least in engineering. Women are encouraged on a daily basis to go into STEM subjects here. They have their own scholarships (female exclusive ones) and other shit. That's fine and great, but please don't use their lack of interest in STEM subjects to justify affirmative action.

There are very few men in nursing, and people have a hard time with the idea of a male nurse, but does anyone give a shit about them? No. They tell them to man up and deal with it. Should there be an affirmative action policy to get more men in nursing?

The people trying to justify affirmative action because they seek a "balance" are completely hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.5346749]

>>5346711
let's go back to the original post:
>they have a greater chance of having a better influence on the rest of humanity
the presented base for the value of people was their influence on the rest of humanity so I used that
I only need to show that as incorrect to make them back out of the claim entirely
Inevitably, the idea of "then what can we measure people by?" would come up and would lead to us concluding we can't reliably measure a person's worth because special case bullshit
it's stupid, but it's circular reasoning that can't be proven incorrect, only discarded
And if we discard it, there is nowhere else to go
there, that's the argument
I don't want to talk about it anymore

[Anonymous No.5346753]

>>5346735

>I get my (private) pay packet each month and go around every single man I work with and compare it to his (private) pay packet, break it down by hour and have a scientific method to establish precisely how much work we've done. We've done exactly the same amount and I get paid less. The computer working out the accounts has been paying me less for years. It's a conspiracy.

Right.

[David No.5346756]

The argument isn't supposed to explain people, it's supposed to explain trends. Obviously men and women aren't the same genetically, men wound up with a crippled chromosome! And of course women can be better at things than men, but you cannot assume that there is no correlation. It may be small, but your DNA builds you, and as such builds you uniquely.

[Anonymous No.5346759]

>>5346695
Restaurants? Aren't those the places women get tips just by smiling and showing a little cleavage?

Where it's legal to pay employees under a minimum wage with the expectation that they'll make it up in tips, the state should, if it were consistent, allow female employees to be paid even less, since they'll make more that way, and it should be easily provable statistically.

Which would, of course, be just another legal privilege for women.

[Anonymous No.5346761]

>>5346723

>a place selling food isn't a large company

Darden Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE: DRI) is a multi-brand restaurant operator headquartered in an unincorporated area in Orange County, Florida, near Orlando.[1] The firm owns several casual dining restaurant chains, most notably Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, and Red Lobster. Darden owns and operates 1,936 restaurant locations throughout North America and has more than 180,000 employees, making it the largest full-service restaurant company in the world after Skylark.

>not a massive employer

[Anonymous No.5346770]

>>5346759

It's legal to pay less than minimum wage while the employee is taking tables, yes, because the tips make up that shortfall. However it is also standard practice for these same workers to have other duties (cleaning, stocking, etc.) that must be done after they've been "cut", that is, after they stop taking tables. According to law, at that time, the company is required to pay them minimum wage. This frequently does not happen (never at any of the restaurants I've worked at).

Gods, some of you people are sheltered.

[Anonymous No.5346775]

>>5346761

So how much are they failing to pay you each month?

[Anonymous No.5346780]

>>5346735
>It is true.
>You are naive and inexperienced.
>I'm dreadfully sorry but the law, and lawyers, do not quite work the way you think they do.
An argument that consists of "you're wrong, and I know it, and your reasoning is wrong too" isn't very persuasive.

>I've never heard of any of the hundreds of people I've worked with being approached, unsolicited, by a lawyer
Yet logically that should be happening. Maybe this flagrant rule-breaking is somehow hard to demonstrate. Which would be the case if it didn't exist.

>more trouble than it was worth and rightly fear for their job? Most of us live paycheck to paycheck. We can't afford an interruption of income.
So so many employees are so desperate for their next paycheck that so few court cases happen that nothing changes? Even with the promise of whatever they might win as soon as they prove this apparent violations?

[Anonymous No.5346784]

>>5346770
I'm not sure which state's laws you're referring to.

[Anonymous No.5346789]

>>5346740

Yeah, but STEM is actually important. When smart women "have less interest" in STEM, the result is, directly and necessarily, that stupid men will fill the gap. That reduces the quality of the graduates, slows everybody down, and even damages the economy in the long run because the STEM researchers aren't as highly skilled as they could be.

In short, my thesis is this: Given men and women both have an equal distribution of STEM skills, and given more men enter STEM by default, and given that a women's scholarship attracts all to STEM women equally, then a women's scholarship *must* improve average STEM graduate ability.

[Anonymous No.5346792]

>>5346775

I've never kept track of exactly how much time I spend doing work at the reduced 2.15 an hour while not taking tables. It probably amounts to about 5 hours a week. Minimum wage in this state is 7.25, so that's 5.15x5 hours per week. Others do more, I usually work 20-30 hours a week and the kinds of shifts I work involve somewhat less sidework than some others. And of course this is multiplied by the tens of thousands of workers, in this company alone, who share this experience every week.

And again by the many, many other restaurants, chain, corporate, private, small and large. You may have noticed that restaurants are fucking everywhere. This practice saves the industry millions every year. The occasional lawsuit costs are small by comparison, so in cynical bean-counter fashion, the practice continues.

[Anonymous No.5346798]

>>5346792

>I've never kept track of exactly how much time I spend doing work at the reduced 2.15 an hour

Then how can you judge them to have underpaid you?

[Anonymous No.5346805]

I always love how /sci/ keeps using the word "gender" incorrectly in the place of "sex"

[Anonymous No.5346814]

>>5346798

Women's intuition/victim complex.

[Anonymous No.5346816]

>>5346780

Listen, I can't help you if you're just going to plug up your ears and shout that there's no problem. You've plainly never worked in this particular industry or you'd know just what I meant; perhaps you know some people you could talk to about it. Like it or not, this happens every day, all over the country.

>yet, logically, it should be happening
Logically? Okay, construct me a syllogism that shows logically what you say is true. No doubt it does happen. There ARE occasional lawsuits. There was a large one in California this year against Darden in particular. The fact remains that these are rare, and the costs incurred to the company by these lawsuits are far outweighed by the benefits they gain by flouting the law.

Yes, the possibility of maybe winning a court case against a wealthy, powerful corporation after a legal battle that will last years is not compelling when you're worried about paying your rent THIS MONTH.

It's like you've never worked a day in your life. Are you seriously trying to claim that companies strictly obey the laws all the time, and that they don't routinely exploit their workers any way they can? You do know why labor unions came into existence, right?

[Anonymous No.5346815]

>>5346789

Ok, where are all these smart women then? Are they all sociologists and woman studies majors? Are they all afraid to try physics because it might require math? Are math questions inherently discriminatory?

This is where affirmative action arguments fall flat on their face, women already have opportunities, they are just not taking them. If you really wanted to make sure that everything is equal, you'd have to change society, which is impossible. So the alternative is to implement this rule of favoritism to promote fairness for past wrong doings of men. Sounds like shit to me.

[Anonymous No.5346822]

>>5346798

I don't know EXACTLY how many hours, but I do know it's more than zero. It's several hours, every week. It might be 4, or it might be 6. Either way, it's amounted to thousands of dollars of underpaid labor over the course of my single working life.

[Anonymous No.5346832]

>>5346798
>>5346780

Here's one of the rare lawsuits I've referred to.

http://www.pe.com/business/business-columns/commercial-real-estate-headlines/20120907-workplace-laws
uit-filed-by-darden-restaurant-servers.ece

Of course, I'm making all this up. All of us are. It's a conspiracy against big corporations, who are often victims.

[Anonymous No.5346834]

>>5346805
The scientific use of the terms are the same.

I've defended the psychological/social meaning of the former in the past, but don't pretend it isn't also a synonym for the latter.

[Anonymous No.5346837]

>>5346822

That doesn't make any sense. Unless you know how much you're being cheated out of, you can't claim to being underpaid.

Also, there's no way you can know the measuring stick. If you applied for a job paying X amount an hour and got it, why are they paying less than advertised? That's illegal. Nobody does that.

How do you know men doing the same job get paid more? Company records don't have gender on them any more and the pay is done by a computer with accounting and EDM software.

You aren't getting underpaid. You're simply doing what all women do - you think you're worth more than you are. It wouldn't matter if they were paying you 90 thousand a year, you'd still think it was less than you deserve.

[Anonymous No.5346859]

>>5346816
>You've plainly never worked in this particular industry or you'd know just what I meant
So you keep saying. I was hoping you'd present argument, or at least reasoning, that didn't rely on me having also experienced your personal anecdotes.

>Okay, construct me a syllogism that shows logically what you say is true.
I already explained, if it's so flagrant, lawyers should logically be willing to work the case in exchange for a helping of the winnings.

>The fact remains that these are rare
Then they can't be so flagrant then can they?

>is not compelling when you're worried about paying your rent THIS MONTH.
That reasoning would work, if there was nobody who ever decided they wanted to do a different job, or just quit, or got fired. People with no incentive not to sue their (former) employer.

>Are you seriously trying to claim that companies strictly obey the laws all the time
High-profile cases where they're found guilty of not doing that make it a strawman there was little chance of me agreeing with.

>You do know why labor unions came into existence, right?
Sure, to monopolise the workforce and keep people being paid even when there was no work for them to do. Why did you think?

[Anonymous No.5346862]

>>5346837

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than this. Any amount of time spent working for less than minimum wage is a violation of the law. We are routinely required to do work at times when we are not taking tables. Even if it were only 5 minutes a day, that would be a violation of the law. It is substantially more than 5 minutes a day. I do not know exactly how many hours, because this is the way things are done and keeping track is pointless. However it adds up to several hours, per worker, per week, more for some and less for others, all of it labor done to the company's benefit without the compensation required by law. I'm male, incidentally. Males and females in this business both suffer from this same practice.

My purpose in bringing this up in the first place was in response to the "women couldn't get paid less than men, it's absurd, the people doing it would get sued". That's nonsense. If it can happen to me, and to tens of thousands of people like me, it can happen to women in other jobs. And does. The law, and lawsuits, are not some kind of magical protection against exploitation. If the company can make more money from breaking the law than they lose when they are called into account for it, they will. These lawsuits are civil actions, nobody has to worry about jail time; they can simply account for the losses in the ledger, and as long as those losses are exceeded by the money being saved in payroll, they will continue. Basic business.

[Anonymous No.5346864]

>>5346837
>Also, there's no way you can know the measuring stick. If you applied for a job paying X amount an hour and got it, why are they paying less than advertised? That's illegal. Nobody does that.


NUMBERS ARE A PATRIARCHAL TOOL OF OPPRESSION.

A WOMEN SIMPLY KNOWS WHEN SHE IS BEING UNDERPAID

[Anonymous No.5346865]

>>5346816
You also haven't explained why, if women really do equal work for less pay, companies would ever hire men.

[Anonymous No.5346871]

>>5346859

We're at an impasse brought on by your ignorance. If it better pleases you to assume I'm making all this up, then I suppose you'll do that. I am not making it up, however.

The reason the company does it is very simple economics. They save more money by not paying us than they lose being occasionally sued. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.5346875]

>>5346815

>you'd have to change society, which is impossible.

Nah man its changing naturally, we're slowly incorporating more analytic and synthetic techniques for making policy and resource allocation decisions. Successful entrepreneurial organizations have always forced us to accept these techniques - propagating ideas is a slow process.

>So the alternative is to implement this rule of favoritism to promote fairness for past wrong doings of men.

"Affirmative action" is just a "temporary" patch (probably 50+ more years - talking about the long game here) while we build better societal systems.

You're applying old rules to a new world. Just because society didn't have the means to make appropriate judgments in the past when developing societal control systems doesn't mean we can't improve them.

Local thinkers shouldn't try to solve global problems. You're analytic skills aren't helpful without synthetic skills. Genetics are only one issue that can't be statistically proven to be significant yet - we really don't have the means to determine this yet. IQ tests are not viable measurement tools on their own either.

[Anonymous No.5346882]

>>5346865

I never made any claims about women being paid less than men for equal work. I'm growing tired of repeating myself. This is why I brought up the bad labor practices in the restaurant industry: because people earlier in this thread claimed that a company would never pay a woman less than a man for the same work, because they'd be too scared of being sued. That is rubbish.

Hell, I'm not even sure there's a law that says women have to be paid the same as men for the same work! In my example, there are black letter laws that regulate how much a worker has to be paid, and when. If those are being ignored on a grand scale, why would there be any incentive not to pay women less if there's no law that says you can't?

It isn't personal, it's just business. Businesses will maximize profit (in this case by cutting costs), any way they can. If they can make more money than they lose by breaking the law, they will. If they can make more money by paying women less, why wouldn't they?

[Anonymous No.5346887]

>>5346871
I don't want to assume you're making at all up, but I can't just take it all on faith either, what with it contradicting common sense and you offering no explanation for why.

>Simple as that.
But you've offered no reason to think they really are doing it so much while getting sued so infrequently.

[Anonymous No.5346886]

>>5346834

Incorrectly used such that it appears synonymous does not mean it is a synonym. Furthermore, when one speaks in science they should be clear and concise, using gender in place of sex when one means sex is neither. Lastly, open a dictionary; you'll probably be surprised by what you find.

[Anonymous No.5346897]

>>5346875
>"Affirmative action" is just a "temporary" patch (probably 50+ more years - talking about the long game here) while we build better societal systems.
Except it's not helping the problem at all. If the problem is the new social rules and better societal systems not being fully applied yet, the only thing affirmative action is doing is skewing the numbers so it looks like it is.

Which wastes money, hides how much the actual solutions have done and have yet to do, and doesn't help individual women except in as much as it harms individual men.

tl;dr affirmative action still only makes sense if the "problem" is professions not being 50/50, which isn't a problem and will never happen anyway.

[Anonymous No.5346903]

>>5346886
No, you claim this usage is incorrect, you prove it, or you're conceding the point.

Until it's shown to be incorrect, is is being used perfectly well, correctly and clearly ITT.

[Anonymous No.5346910]

>>5346887

Yes, I have. Lawsuits are expensive. A private citizen is at a profound disadvantage when attempting to combat a corporation. In the case of my company, a Fortune 500 company. They have teams of lawyers, deep pockets, and have fought these battles before. I have 200 bucks in my checking account, no legal training, and I'd have to hunt down a lawyer who would take the case AND work pro bono on a case that was an uphill battle with an uncertain outcome. These are the basic reasons why injustices perpetrated by the powerful against the weak are so infrequently redressed. Justice COSTS, and it's more than the vast majority of us can afford.

Every so often the little people combine into a class action, and they may succeed. I gave an example of that >>5346832 here. I actually don't know what the outcome of that suit was; it may still be pending. I DO know that nothing about how business is done at my store has changed, which leads me to believe that it is either still pending, was not successful, or that a settlement was reached that satisfied the malcontents. The rest of us carry on as before.

Part of the reason restaurant workers are disorganized and not prone to swift legal action is simply the nature of the workforce. Many are young, many only do it for a few years. Turnover is high. The lifers are vastly outnumbered by the people who will only do it for a few years in college. You will be more inclined to ignore injustice if it something you only have to put up with for a short time.

[Anonymous No.5346921]

>>5346070


>Experiments in which researchers present newborn babies with a picture of a gear and a picture of a face suggest that gender differences are innate and biological and not learned.

But that is a psychological study, and according to /sci/ that isn't science. So we don't have anything that proves that.

[Anonymous No.5346924]

>>5346910
>I'd have to hunt down a lawyer who would take the case AND work pro bono on a case that was an uphill battle with an uncertain outcome
If the violations are so flagrant, why would it be so uncertain?

>These are the basic reasons why injustices perpetrated by the powerful against the weak are so infrequently redressed.
Well, it isn't strictly an injustice to break the law, unless you're also breaking contract.

[Anonymous No.5346929]

>>5346815

> You'd have to change society, which is impossible.

... What? Society is constantly being changed by government. From racial equality to the end of Droit de Signeur to democracy, changes to society is what government is all about.

> Sounds like shit to me.

Why? More women get to do what they like (even if they didn't know it yet, or were afraid to face scorn or social outcast - and yes, even if the STEM people were to treat them equally, their friends and acquantances would still look at them weird for picking something unfeminine with greasy nerd colleagues) the quality of STEM graduates improves, society changes to accept STEM as a gender-equal field, etc. You only perceive unfairness in the affirmative action scenario because when you imagine a woman making a choice to do STEM, you're imagining yourself with tits. The counterfactual scenario where women get an unfair advantage by getting money for something they already wanted to do is unrepresentative. More fairly, women are being paid to do something they don't really want to do at the moment for the betterment of society as a whole.

[Anonymous No.5346935]

>>5346897

>the only thing affirmative action is doing is skewing the numbers so it looks like it is.

I can respect that point of view. I'd like to think that is a factor being accounted for when developing models.

>tl;dr affirmative action still only makes sense if the "problem" is professions not being 50/50, which isn't a problem and will never happen anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. Its hard to say at this point. I'd say its a reasonable trade off considering how many other skewed societal metrics are implemented by our government that are more fundamental to our well being. Subsidies for bad food production and military R&D over more valuable R&D for sustainability, sea and space exploration, etc.

I will say that organizations whose priorities are aligned with innovation (is that so far removed from pure science?) understand the value of diversity for developing creative environments based on specialized knowledge though.

[Anonymous No.5346952]

>>5346815

Oh yeah, and those "past wrongdoing" are still very much ongoing. Glass ceilings, lesser pay, discriminatory judgments (see >>5345157 ), etc. Nothing like the direct insults of the '60s, the flat-handed slaps of the '50s, and the wholesale exclusion from intellectual discussion of the '30s, but yeah... society is still male-oriented and male-dominated.

[Anonymous No.5346958]

>>5346924

>breaking the law
>not unjust

You ... I ... are you even listening to yourself? We're not talking about Robin Hood here, breaking an unjust law to benefit the downtrodden. We're talking about a rich, powerful corporation not paying workers what the law says they're owed (minimum fucking wage, hardly extravagant) for work they're doing that benefits the company. If you don't consider that unjust you're crazy.

>flagrant violations, outcome uncertain

I feel like I'm talking to a child here. Rich and powerful interests have a much easier time avoiding punishment for their misdeeds. This is a basic law of human society. Just because they broke the law and everyone knows they broke the law does not mean their lawyers can't find a defense, a loophole, discredit witnesses, etc. You're doing a grand job of doubting me, and YOU have nothing at stake aside from your flawed world view. OJ was plainly guilty, how is it HE was acquitted? For God's sake man, legal actions don't work that way. Actual guilt frequently has no bearing on the legal outcome.

[Anonymous No.5346982]

>>5346935
>I'd like to think that is a factor being accounted for when developing models.
I'd suggest you're being massively optimistic. Policies like this aren't planned long-term; they implemented and accepted and there is no one who will be able to tell you how long they were intended to last, in years or in "success" (which, of course, isn't success, just creating the same numeric effect success might).

The people who call for them now aren't people who think "Actually, we need this a bit more/bit longer"; they're people who liked them and want more, with no thought to the future or to actual solutions.

>Maybe, maybe not. Its hard to say at this point.
What do you mean? Maybe 50/50 will happen? No, at the most even, it would waver, 51/49, 49/51. Should affirmative action for men be implemented the moment it goes over the perfect balance? Or if it's only for women, should it be cancelled when they have 51% of jobs in a field, but then brought back whenever the numbers water to 49%?

>I'd say its a reasonable trade off
But it can't be a trade off unless we're getting something in return! It's not "less equality in one way for more equality in another"; it's "less equality, and institutionalised, legal discrimination, and economic skewing, for something that on paper looks like what equality might potentially look like". There's nothing we're trading equality off for!

>organizations whose priorities are aligned with innovation ... understand the value of diversity for developing creative environments
Which is why there needs to be no legal discrimination or economic skewing, because to be successful one need to select the people one thinks make a good team, not just random individuals, nor random individuals according to a quota system.

[Anonymous No.5346984]

>>5345205
>The developed nations are having issues with birth rates.
Only because they've leveraged their extravagant lifestyles by the sweat of the next generation. There's no reason to think that a dropoff in birth rates is an issue otherwise.
>Encouraging more children is not the worst idea possible.
I don't agree. How do you justify this stance?

[Anonymous No.5346989]

>>5346958
You call me crazy because I don't agree with your "government's dictate = morality" viewpoint, and you feel you're talking to a child?

[Anonymous No.5346993]

>>5346903

You claimed it wasn't, I suggested you look in an actual dictionary.

[Anonymous No.5347002]

When we look at really casual racists in the past, we sometimes say of those people "They're just from another time," and we don't really fault them too harshly.

This is what you're grand kids will say of you and your sexism. So keep making kitchen jokes or whatever you guys get your rocks off too now, you don't have long before the majority of people start calling you out as the pieces of shit you are.

[Anonymous No.5347003]

>>5346952

Yes, and I agree with you that those are all horrible things, but affirmative action is not the answer to it. I have no idea how you would do this, but you need to change the way society as a whole perceives females, not give them special quotas. That just makes people doubt them even more.

Affirmative action is still bullshit, there is no justification.

[Anonymous No.5347012]

>>5346989

So your position is that minimum wage is an unfair burden to companies? In my state it's 7.25 an hour. You find that not paying workers this pittance is not an injustice. You disagree with this law simply because it came from the government.

Yes. A spoiled child who has not had to struggle much to survive.

[Anonymous No.5347013]

>>5346952
>Glass ceilings, lesser pay, discriminatory judgments
Except no-one says that besides feminists (who aren't exactly impartial) and statisticians who always seem to forget tiny but relevant factors like other priorities besides work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "judgements"; it sounds like you're talking about courts, like the way family courts are biased against men, but the post you point at is about something completely different (that's also been explained ITT).

>but yeah... society is still male-oriented and male-dominated.
Do you know how much of the taxmoney spent on welfare and healthcare is paid by men? And how much of it goes to women? I didn't, but I've never said society is male-dominated or male-oriented since I found out.

It does make sense that the state would be biased, given women are the majority of voters.

[Anonymous No.5347020]

forgot my sage

[Anonymous No.5347021]

>>5346993
I claimed there was nothing wrong with the way /literally everybody in the thread/ was using it. You came her to tell us all wrong, and then we're the ones who have to quote proof contrary to your assertions?

[Anonymous No.5347026]

>>5347002
daww, is miss butthurt feminist annoyed she can't defend the many entitlements she gets by virtue of her sex?

[Anonymous No.5347034]

(BA) French
(BSc) Physiology

shit I needed a good laugh tonight

[Anonymous No.5347047]

>>5347012
>You find that not paying workers this pittance is not an injustice.
I find that people who's work is worth less than that sum being unable to find work because of a law that is somehow supposed to protect them (or protect you, the more skilled worker? it's never clear) most certainly is an injustice.

>You disagree with this law simply because it came from the government.
Strawman alert! Just because you agree with it simply because it came from the government (which you implied and now haven't denied, so I can reasonably believe), doesn't mean anyone who doesn't see the state as a secular version of the Ten Commandments thinks anything it says is inherently wrong.

>A spoiled child who has not had to struggle much to survive.
lol, what's this about? I could say "yup, so what", or "haha, nope", and what would that mean? Would you say I was liar if I called you out on your presumption? Would you say I have no right to speak about matters I haven't personally experienced if I "admitted" it? Or was it just a weak attempt to shore up your emotive non-argument with an ad hominem?

I'm honestly not sure.

[Anonymous No.5347051]

>>5345205
>>Also the fact that it's sexist and therefore unequal treatment under the law, illegal according to the laws and constitutions of many Western countries.
>Not in the slightest. Such a law would apply equally to pregnant men.

It is NOT a sexist law, but not for that reason in the least -- that's just stupid, and everyone in law would agree.
The reason is because it is a biological standard, one beyond human law, that makes it necessary for women to continue the species.

That is, law cannot have any say, so it has to be wound around that particular restriction.
Women will get pregnant; how do we deal with that?
Women nurse and provide critical early-development health and guidance; how do we deal with that?
It is not necessary that we provide for and protect women for those, but would you want to live in a society that didn't?

[Anonymous No.5347058]

>>5346982

>I'd suggest you're being massively optimistic.

Already being implemented. Organizations that are successful will propagate these ideas to others. We still have to fight old rules of thumb, it takes time to fight ignorance. People rarely accept facts over what they grew up with, really a lot of the old school has yet to die off yet.

>What do you mean?

When we feel comfortable with our design and implementation based on our results. I don't claim to know what the cut off is. We do know with certainty that what we have now are poor organizational designs within the context of systems engineering.

>But it can't be a trade off unless we're getting something in return!

We are involving traditionally excluded subsets of the population in a crucial role of society - with the goal of uplifting these subsets to equality with the whole. Think of it as social R&D.

>Which is why there needs to be no legal discrimination or economic skewing, because to be successful one need to select the people one thinks make a good team, not just random individuals, nor random individuals according to a quota system.

Surprisingly, I agree with this. People will be drawn to like minds - this is a two way street between employee and employer. Its hard to justify "forcing" people into roles where they won't succeed, but we have to create economic viability somewhere - a temporary, necessary evil because people were not ethical enough in the past to warrant the responsibility to understand their self interests.

tl:dr: This is a systems engineering issue, not a social science, biological, political science, or economic issue, which I would consider mathematically poor pure "sciences". If this sounds like an insult to you, then I suggest you study more mathematics and design before developing opinions - and with that I'm out.

[Anonymous No.5347070]

>>5346666
>If you're struggling with a subject in school, and need help, and find the professors just don't have the time or the inclination to help you the way they might if you were male, how do you suppose that would affect your grades?

Male here, this exact thing happened to me all the time. In highschool I was so far ahead I'd actually go up to the teachers desk almost every day and try to get her to teach me more advanced stuff like calculus, and every day I would be sent back down to my desk and told to 'just wait till next year'. In fact, I don't think I ever had a single teacher who actually actively helped me in my schoolwork. For most of my highschool career I was completely self taught, and I actually dropped out for several years in order to teach myself completely because the subjects at my school where so slow.
I realize that you're talking in generalities, but I hardly consider myself an exception. Surely guys aren't treated THAT much better than girls, and even if they are it shouldn't matter when faced with genuine interest in the subject.

[Anonymous No.5347087]

>>5347058
>Already being implemented.
By different people! The people calling for affirmative action are not the ones providing the correct solution; they are worst enemies!

The people who want affirmative action do not want it to be temporary. They will never, in any case, say the situation there is solved and affirmative action should be removed.

>We are involving traditionally excluded subsets of the population in a crucial role of society - with the goal of uplifting these subsets to equality with the whole. Think of it as social R&D.
But that's not how society works. You don't involve people more by treating them differently, especially when the supposed end goal utterly contradicts the special treatment they're going to be getting for the indefinite future.

>Its hard to justify "forcing" people into roles where they won't succeed, but we have to create economic viability somewhere
Economic distortion for more representative numbers is nowhere near economic viability.

>and with that I'm out.
With respect, I can't hear this in internet debates without mentally adding "of arguments" at the end.

[Anonymous No.5347104]

Well I cannot argue that they do not face discrimination... It is a lot easier to get a job in an engineering industry for a woman..

[Anonymous No.5348203]

So what have we concluded in this thread? Affirmative action is bad, and anything else?

[Anonymous No.5350260]

>>5347051
>Women nurse and provide critical early-development health and guidance; how do we deal with that?
>It is not necessary that we provide for and protect women for those, but would you want to live in a society that didn't?
Yup, I'd fucking love to live in a society where men and childless women don't have to subsidise women who decides to interrupt their work to have children, and where my taxmoney doesn't pay to reinforce harmful stereotypes.

[Anonymous No.5350433]

>>5345138
people should be aware of this before they start commenting

that being said, that original video is fucking TERRIBLE. Seriously, do you guys want girls going into science with the intention of making it like pop culture shit? Girls are already in science doing science, not LOOK AT ME I'M A GIRL SCIENTIST SUCH A NERD XD. The original video was going in the wrong direction. The response has a right to criticize it. We don't want to become /v/

[Anonymous No.5350452]

>>5346032
What the fuck I never saw that ridiculous picture of Galois before

[Anonymous No.5350727]

>>5345325
you are obviously disconnected with the real world, don't you see all these women having tons of children so they can force men to give them money? if they'll withstand pain to do that, they'll withstand pain to get the government to give them money too. it can be taken advantage of, veto'd.

[Anonymous No.5350752]

>>5345809
okay comrades, I am russian. i have idea. how bout we kill all woman they stupid and weak anyhow take x chromosome from two men put together in artifical egg cell BANG we get female. we edit genes make females stupider than they already are and no more of this stupid talk about useful woman ya?

[Anonymous No.5350761]

>>5346593
That still doesn't explain why you didn't critically think your way out of your oppression. Seriously, you keep saying all this shit about how men are disposable and your vagina is sacred because you can pump out babies but when it comes down to it you NEED society and philosophy and law to give you equal footing. You couldn't do so before and therefore you are NOT equal. Mammalian nature is usually misogynist. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.5350770]

>>5350761
exactly. men were superior before and they're still superior now and women are STILL trying to bring them down to their level because being inferior is just too much to bear.

[Anonymous No.5350811]

Ooooo! One of THESE threads. Let me contribute my obligatory piece.

So I have a very rich female friend. She's recently inherited all her money from her family, who are all dead (they all died when she was very very young and her grandfather was the only person left to raise her and he passed away just this year) and so she hasn't worked a day in her life and doesn't plan to. Now with no one to tell her what to do financially (he grandfather not being around to scold some sense into her), she goes absolutely crazy with her millions. Naturally, being a jealous poorfag, I ask her why she needs to buy so much shit she has no use for (new cars, game consoles, computers, you name it. she's had a steady stream of packages coming to her house twice a day for the past five weeks). Every time I ask her this or try to convince her she doesn't need something or that she's being a greedy bitch, she whines and complains that its her god given right to do so and that its not my fault that i'm poor, but its not her fault either and she will always be rich and i will always be poor. that kind shit cuts deep, but it was true. the more I thought about and fumed and raged, the more I realized I didn't want her to buy anything so that I wouldn't be left behind as I couldn't keep up with her spending habits for things I wanted. I wanted to try to hold her back and bring her down to my level because I honestly didn't want to see her get everything she waned when I didn't and the injustice of it all constantly grated. (I forgot to mention that she's a total bitch to everyone who isn't her friend, but she doesn't help her friends out much either. think of the most spoiled, undeserving rich kid you can and she's probably two-three times worse than that.

[Anonymous No.5350813]

>>5350811
part2

I believe the same applies for gender relations. Men have a natural strength given to them and it may be unfair, but that's just the way it is. Its their right to use it their best advantage, even if it puts weaker males and females at a disadvantage. Who are women to tell men they can't exert their strength over the weaker? They have a greater talent and you expect them to not use it? For what? Because you can't keep up? Because its not fair? Because its not "right"?" What you consider morally wrong is only so because you're on the losing side.

If you still can't see it, look from my friend's side. You're rich as fuck and you will live out the rest of your life doing whatever you want and buying whatever you want. Then your poorfag friend tells you shouldn't. You ask him why and the only reason he can come up with is that its just morally wrong for you to be so greedy and selfish. But its your money! You think. By right it belongs to you and you can do whatever you want with it. Why would you give up the advantage you have in life over him just because he doesn't want you to have it (because he doesn't have it too)?

Seriously, think long and hard about this one femnazis.

[Anonymous No.5350837]

>>5350811
>>5350813
really? no one's going to contest this?

[Anonymous No.5350869]

>>5350837
I liked it.

its a pretty straightforward and generalizing metaphor but it works.

[Anonymous No.5350878]

While we can all agree there are differences between men and women. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the current state of affairs in society as we know it happens because it's purely a "natural occurrence".

Most of what society "is" in respect to the roles of women and men are placed for the convenience of structure and what currently works, so it might be that the amount of women in science and math is in retrospect much lower than it could potentially be simply because there were/are other professions and positions out there that provided better security or social standing for the effort put in.

Outside of family and certain interested parties honestly. I'm not aware of many people who find women in science and math (especially those in "hard" subjects) to be too alluring. At least not as alluring as men have been which isn't as much as we hoped it would be these days or in general.

[Anonymous No.5350879]

I dunno if this point was made, but if a woman gets paid 75 cents on the dollar for the same work a man does, why would any business ever hire a man?

[Anonymous No.5350882]

>>5350813
>>5350811
>>5350837
ITT: Babby's first master-slave morality revelation

[Anonymous No.5350888]

>>5350869
thanks. it was a painful experience and i can understand what women are feeling but i understand too that that's just the way it is. no one wants their rights taken away from them. that's just as unfair.

>>5350882
it certainly was!

[Anonymous No.5350892]

>>5350879

Low maintenance and more/less social obligation.

More because "real" men get jobs and contribute! and less because thats really all they have to do to satisfy the minimum...that and knock-up a woman or two but that takes no more than a couple of minutes. It's certainly not something you take an entire day/week/month off to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.5350902]

I thought you guys were going to argue that merit and logic should determine which scientists to invest resources in, but everyone here seem to be arguing women are inferior and should be discriminated against, which makes you no better than the misandrists abusing the feminist movement who accuse everything and everyone of being sexist and think men should be discriminated again to even things out.

Can you imagine being the manager of a R&D project, committed to the task at hand, then for one of these people to turn up and stirring up distrust and hate? In my view they would be just as bad as a bigot carrying out workplace bullying and harassment, disrupting human resources, costing money. I would suddenly become very determined to get rid of them by any means necessary.

For the record, this /sci/entist disapproves of both sides of the argument.

[Anonymous No.5352632]

>>5350837
>>5350888
I agree with it, but feminists will make claims about how "everyone should have the same opportunity, and women need help to get that", even though any such help they'll ask for will be entitlements paid for by men.

>>5350882
It sounds hot when you put it like that.

[Anonymous No.5352644]

>>5350882
The correct spelling is "baby". You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.5353451]

>>5350902
>everyone here seem to be arguing women are inferior and should be discriminated against
How did you read that?

Btw, that pic is funny, but I hate the people who made it. It looks reasonable, but we all know the people who post it are the ones who say "Actually, I don't believe you can prove or disprove God!"

[Anonymous No.5353462]

>>5350902
You're contradicting yourself there Donnie. If women were actually "inferior" then it wouldn't be discrimination to not want to hire them, it would be a reflection of their actual abilities. Just like no one expects rich bankers to hire ugly women to be their secretaries.

[Anonymous No.5353472]

mfw in trying to demonstrate how women are more suited to science, they highlight every weakness they bring to the game.

[Anonymous No.5353480]

>affirmative action

You mean "anti-qualifications"?

Sounds like a solid plan.

[Anonymous No.5353488]

>>5352644
>The correct spelling is "baby".
no

[Anonymous No.5355519]

>>5353472
>>5353480
I like you two.

[Anonymous No.5356964]

>>5353488
babe?

[Anonymous No.5356990]

>>5356964
>babe?
no, 'babby' is correct, do a search for 'how is babby formed?'

[Anonymous No.5357196]

>Oh no guys, Male and Female are the same! My sociology teacher told me so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ

[Anonymous No.5357198]

>>5352644
first time on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.5357227]

>>5346542
>admiting there are many people who are more intelligent than him
>in /sci/
Your kind is not welcome here...

[Anonymous No.5357274]

AA

[Anonymous No.5358679]

>>5357274
lol'd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxCEKaKCXec

video related

[Anonymous No.5361034]

>>5356990
babby just doesn't sound as aesthetically appealing as babe

[Anonymous No.5361039]

>>5345878
I agree completely.

This line of argument complements >>5345750

[Anonymous No.5361049]

>>5361039
>complements >>5345750
Except that we've now got (and have had for a long time) a stable enough structure in which it doesn't make even utilitarian sense for men to be at all more disposable.

[Anonymous No.5361060]

>>5361049
>Except that we've now got (and have had for a long time) a stable enough structure in which it doesn't make even utilitarian sense for men to be at all more disposable.

It doesn't make sense now, but it did while most of biological evolution was occurring.

[Anonymous No.5361094]

>>5361060
It made sense for our past cultures, but not for this one, so it should be discouraged nowadays.

[Anonymous No.5361138]

>>5361094
We're not considering whether it should be encouraged or discouraged. We're considering whether it affected evolution to a degree that it produced psychological differences between the two sexes.

[Anonymous No.5361164]

>>5361138
Well, actually you were just pointing out that it was advantageous and then implying it lead to biologically evolved differences.

The big risk with evopsych is that people can use it to justify discrimination, akin to racial classifications a couple of centuries ago, and eugenics last century.

In this situation, saying "oh, men naturally take more risks, they inherently act more expendable" will very easily lead to dismissing things like men's lower life expectancies, worse, health and so on as just facts of life, not societal problems that should be addressed.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Anonymous No.5361225]

>>5350433
To be fair, guys are already making it pop garbage.

[Anonymous No.5361230]

>>5357274
>seeing life as a race
> implying the default state of affairs treats everybody equally

Well there's your problem, you liberal fucktards. Life isn't a fair combat where everybody has equal opportunities and starting positions, neither before nor after any conscious entity starts to mess with it. There is abundant evidence that by default society is (unawarely) discriminatory, and the fruits of labor are too important to bother with giving you pathetic white omega male failures an illusion of fairness.

Bill Gates spoke to a Saudi Arabian programming conference, saying that they wasted half their talent with their 100% male programmer base. Do you really think the American 90% is that much better?

Affirmative action changes the opportunities, as feminism changes the starting positions. They cancel out the omnipresent (and they are omnipresent) gender and racial biases.

We're sorry for any laziness this fine opportunity to blame bad outcomes on others has caused.