Why are women still underrepresented in science? http://youtu.be/z_1zWW0qbM0

File: 69 KB, 717x709, gf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 06:23:12 2015 No.7075719 [Reply] [Original]

Why are women still underrepresented in science?
http://youtu.be/z_1zWW0qbM0

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 07:02:15 2015 No.7075742 Genetics

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 07:08:15 2015 No.7075749 why does 'representation' matter in science?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 07:10:00 2015 No.7075751 >>7075749 Yeah, the argument should be "Women who like science aren't doing science", not that there aren't enough of them.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 07:21:34 2015 No.7075756

i think people are claiming more that they society doesnt tell women that science is a good career like they apparently do to men. i relaly find this interesting because as this is studied we'll find out if men and owmen fundamentally find different careers appealing any why. maybe we'll even learn about male/female psychology when it comes to the study of fundamental laws of nautre.

seriosly though, i want more babes in physics science

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 07:49:28 2015 No.7075784 >>7075749 >typical privileged white response How about getting more than one perspective on research? Or are you too narrowminded to see even that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 07:59:15 2015 No.7075792 File: 108 KB, 1200x1330, 1424126080341.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7075784

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 08:03:45 2015 No.7075794 >>7075719 Because they choose different paths. Society has done all it should, the playing field is level and it's up to the individual to make their place in the world. That simple.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 08:06:02 2015 No.7075796 sjw warrrior pls go

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:03:41 2015 No.7075832

>>7075794

You are aware that legislation etc. does not equal society? Equal legislation relating to career choices levels the playing field, yes, but it that doesn't help if the field is populated by people who won't take you into their team.

>it's up to the individual to make their place in the world
>That simple.

I'm as pissed off by all that badly researched gender studies shit getting plastered all over campuses as the next guy/gal. But no, it shouldn't be up to the individual to correct false assumptions about a non-existing causal chain between gender and scientific prowess.

That there are fewer women in science has less to do with having a vagina than it has to do what people in higher positions might think about vaginas. Legislation has nothing to do with that and frankly, legislation shouldn't be used to "correct" ideas. There is no other way than discussion and sadly, the gender studies people go about it the wrong way.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:09:44 2015 No.7075833

>>7075832
>if the field is populated by people who won't take you into their team
>That there are fewer women in science has less to do with having a vagina than it has to do what people in higher positions might think about vaginas

What does that mean?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:16:17 2015 No.7075838

>>7075832
>That there are fewer women in science has less to do with having a vagina than it has to do what people in higher positions might think about vaginas.
[citation needed]

What about IQ distribution by gender? Women have a lower standard deviation than men, so even they have the same _average_ IQ as men, most unusually intelligent people (and most unusually stupid people) are men.

What about pregnancy?
Well, OK, a pregnant woman spends less than 48 hours in the hospital at birth, and _could_ just skip a week's vacation to compensate.
But in reality women _choose_ to divide their focus, and often take months or years away from school and work as a result of childbirth.

And what about choice of partners? Women have a far greater expectation of being able to choose between a lucrative career, or finding a partner that will provide for the majority of her financial needs.
As long as women exercise this option, there will be a "science gap", as well as a "pay gap".

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:16:46 2015 No.7075839 File: 17 KB, 429x241, 1413865588783.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:17:48 2015 No.7075840 File: 66 KB, 741x643, 1413981858318.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:20:08 2015 No.7075841 File: 6 KB, 587x328, variance.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7075839 ??? I thought it looked more like this (pic related).

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:22:31 2015 No.7075844

>>7075833
>>7075838

Toss the higher positions part out, I admit I got a little carried away. What I mean is science is not a thing that is classically considered a career choice for women by the general population. The official stance of the government and most other institutions may be different, but the reality is different. So girls are primed for different things and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There is no enemy in this, like "the patriarchy", it's just the way we thought about this doesn't work anymore and for there to be true equality (and there has been accomplished much) in the minds of the median citizen, there has to be a long discussion.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 09:28:59 2015 No.7075850

>>7075844
>So girls are primed for different things and it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Maybe before college, but if there's a bastion of egalitarian ideals in America, it got to be Academia.

And the pre-college "priming" is not all gender-specific by accident.
Girls are in higher social demand then boys, and are more socially interdependent among themselves.
So they're less subject to social "peer-review" in real life, making the scientific world more of a adjustment for them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 10:07:23 2015 No.7075892 >>7075841 IQ vs fluid intelligence factor. In either case, the values are higher for men, with usually a higher standard deviation as well.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 10:13:59 2015 No.7075900

>>7075840
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

That data is inaccurate. Biggest reason is they INFER iq based on HS post-test scores. Students change majors, high-iq dropouts, parents IQ, etc, would drastically warp these results.

Anecdote: my brother and I dropped out, and he's on his way to some sort of high-tech degree, while I'm a Mensan going for just a Bachelors in EE, only because I want a family and good job, asap. I'll probably continue on to Masters level, or switch majors to physics or something programming related.

My housemate at uni right now switched from engineering, to nursing, to premed. Literally I'd estimate the majority of engineers do not go on to actually get an Engineering AS or higher, the major-changing rates are staggering.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 10:17:41 2015 No.7075907 >>7075841 Do you have a source for this? It seems like it could be true, but it needs confirmation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 11:55:42 2015 No.7076044 2/3 of the post secondary students in canada are female. >still women only scholarships

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 11:56:47 2015 No.7076047 why are uncool nerds so over-represented in science? hardly any normal people the higher up you go... Smart people weren't this autistic back in the day, so what gives?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 12:01:12 2015 No.7076053 Why do women in science have to be so fucking catty? Why do women in general have to be so fucking catty? They flock in groups and the groupthink is unbelievable. I will never work in a biochem or microbio lab for this reason.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 12:02:05 2015 No.7076056 File: 142 KB, 1000x1506, marion-cotillard-original-taxi-2118140787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7075719 Must be completely weird to have a 16yo doppelgänger.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 12:08:05 2015 No.7076067
File: 91 KB, 330x326, Meccano_model_Steam_shovel_excavator.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7075719
Because when christmas comes, little girls receive toy kitchen sets and dolls that pee themselves.

While little boys receive do-it-yourself remote-contolled PC programmable meccano style machine construction kits, or chemistry kits, or toy microscopes.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 12:10:45 2015 No.7076071

>>7076053
There was a post-doc in my lab who, aside from being utterly useless and doing almost nothing for 2 years while sucking away money from the grant, would turn incredibly catty about other women. Especially cute ones who obviously got attention.

She became friends with an equally-catty grad student and they were insufferable.

I love women, have a wife, am not a bitter permavirgin etc but after witnessing this catty behavior I'd think twice about having more than one woman in my lab if I were a supervisor. It's amazing how their personalities changed.

I feel like guys mostly care about the work, even if there is some dick-swinging aggression or ego involved.

Another anecdote: a friend of mine was a grad student and told me of a lab down the hall that was full of girls. They formed cliques within the lab and it got to the point where they would sabotage experiments! That's fucked.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 12:14:32 2015 No.7076084

>>7076044
It's not that much higher at all, but there are definitely more women than men in post-secondary school in Canada.

Women-only scholarships are often from third-party funders. Either way, we won't see them disappear until salary/employment equality is perfectly balanced... even they we probably won't see that.

I have mixed feelings about affirmative action/forced equality measures, but they probably do help give other people an edge who would traditionally be at a disadvantage. It still sucks not being able to check "visible minority" or whatever on a scholarship application, but that's the way it goes. No point in dwelling on it, just be the best you an be and don't get bitter about minuscule things.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 12:50:06 2015 No.7076126

>>7075719
why are there so few men in biology ?
Why isn't there any campaign to encourage men go into biology ? Oh wait... Because men care less about biology and like physics more. And women care less about physics than for biology. How is that a problem ffs.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 12:56:46 2015 No.7076131
File: 27 KB, 600x600, 1423253023183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7075719
Why are men still underrepresented in nursing?

Why are men still underrepresented in communications?

Why are men still underrepresented in PR?

Why are men still underrepresented in HR?

In short, who cares. Go fuck yourself. Sexes are not equal and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Trying to push people into professions that don't suit them is equivalent to slavery.

Also, fuck off with this SJW shit. This is an /sci/ board.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:01:18 2015 No.7076134
File: 81 KB, 493x750, 1417371338240.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Women's under-representation in science is nothing compared to their under-representation in construction working, garbage collecting and other manual stuff.

It's a problem that must be faced immediately.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:01:53 2015 No.7076136 >>7075719 >Why are women still underrepresented in science? Because we're still mostly dumb animals.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:07:01 2015 No.7076143 >>7076044 Seriously. Being a woman is like life on easy mode, and they still cry about sexism and patriarchy. Give me a break.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:10:54 2015 No.7076145 I AM SORRY FOR BEING MALE I AM SORRY FOR BEING MALE I AM SORRY FOR BEING MALE I AM SORRY FOR BEING MALE

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:11:06 2015 No.7076146 >>7076136 it's just you

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:33:53 2015 No.7076185

>>7075719
Isn't that the wrong question to ask? Shouldn't it be "Is it a problem that women are underrepresented in science?". There are lots of fields where women are over/under represented, but some of them aren't really problematic.

If every woman who wanted to be a scientist was already a scientist, then there is no issue. It's only an issue if women feel they cannot become scientists because of some actual or perceived obstacles.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:36:34 2015 No.7076190
File: 75 KB, 549x549, _71491129_brainpnas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Men and women's brains are 'wired differently'
>Men and women's brains are connected in different ways which may explain why the sexes excel at certain tasks, say researchers

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25198063

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:45:10 2015 No.7076211 File: 168 KB, 503x280, 1402522219300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076190 Those result disagree with my ideology therefore they are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:49:39 2015 No.7076219 >>7076044 >2/3 of the post secondary students in canada are female. This seems to be a much more troubling statistic than the gender ratio in a specific field. I find it strange that nobody seems to care about it.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:52:15 2015 No.7076223

>>7076185
>It's only an issue if women who want to be scientists* feel they cannot become scientists because of some actual or perceived obstacles.

It's not an issue if women feel they cannot become scientists because of some perceived issue but do not actually want to become scientists anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:53:38 2015 No.7076225 >>7076131 The most glaring difference I see is in primary education. I have two little girls in elementary school. It's great for them, but I feel the system is generally skewed against boys.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:54:12 2015 No.7076226 >>7076223 Yeah my wording was poor, but that's what I meant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:54:47 2015 No.7076227 File: 1.20 MB, 1920x1080, 1408817884976.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076219 >I find it strange that nobody seems to care about it Nobody really gives a shit as long as it affects males.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:55:32 2015 No.7076228 File: 6 KB, 645x773, 1423350786186-fs8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076044 >2/3 of the post secondary students in canada are female. If that's true, Canada's fucked. What the fuck happened there??? Another libturd shithole?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 13:57:33 2015 No.7076230 File: 49 KB, 404x349, 1395082108119.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076228 >Another libturd shithole? Yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jEQYHAFfjg

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:00:12 2015 No.7076235 >>7076227 Yeah but what if most men in canada don't want to do post secondary stuff? Then it's not an issue. That or they're too dumb to get in.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:01:27 2015 No.7076236

>>7076067
But there have been several studies on this exact phenomenon that show that even newborns without any significant interaction from their parents show a sexual dimorphism. New born males prefer mechanistic toys while newborn females prefer social toys.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:02:31 2015 No.7076237
File: 1.75 MB, 1026x1026, 1423836848481.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7076235
Apparently when there is a disparity it's society's fault and there aren't other factors at play.
But I guess that only happens when it affects females.

With men, sure, of course it might be their fault and responsability.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:05:32 2015 No.7076243

>>7076131
>nursing, communications, PR, HR
What is "socialization"? In other words, in the same way that we groom males to do "male things" (engineering, science, etc.) from birth, we groom females to do "female things" (nursing, domestic labor, clerical work, etc.).

You say this is a /sci/ board. You seem awfully closed-minded for a scientist.

>>7076071
>muh anecdotal evidence

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:10:20 2015 No.7076252 >>7075892 >IQ vs fluid intelligence factor. IQ represents crystallised intelligence now? >>7076146 >Not knowing that cynics are the only truly rational realists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:13:41 2015 No.7076260 >>7076243 >You seem awfully closed-minded for a scientist. you seem about as autistic as one would expect from a scientist

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:46:33 2015 No.7076325

>>7076243
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOFXLl7eh4

I know the title sounds like crap, but it's not the original title of the documentary. It shows very nicely that biological factors are mostly excluded from consideration nowadays. It appears that it seems to be rather important to understand OP's question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:54:12 2015 No.7076345 >>7076243 You sound retarded. Are you from Sweden?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 14:56:46 2015 No.7076355 http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf Male newborns showed more interest in a mechanical object than a human face and female newborns showed more interest in a face than a mechanical object.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:01:26 2015 No.7076371 >>7076252 No, IQ is strange matter, you fuck.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:09:50 2015 No.7076384 >>7075784 >typical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:13:11 2015 No.7076394 >tfw no gf

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:14:06 2015 No.7076395 All I know is we should be punishing colleges for not being liberal enough.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:18:35 2015 No.7076402 >>7076134 This

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:23:43 2015 No.7076409 >>7076243 What "grooming"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:27:10 2015 No.7076410 Right now I'm in a canadian grade 11 biology classroom. The ratio of males (including me) to females is 1:4. There are 8 males and 32 females. The teacher is a FEMALE identifying male. Fuck me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:27:35 2015 No.7076411 >>7075719 Why are men still underrepresented in kinder garden teachers?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:29:16 2015 No.7076414 >>7076260 >calling scientists autistic >typing on a machine designed by an autist >being this autistic

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:33:39 2015 No.7076417 >>7076414 > Perceiving the word autist as an insult

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:35:50 2015 No.7076422 >>7075719 Because there's not a huge demand for "spoiled lazy entitled pieces of shit" in the technical industries

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:36:11 2015 No.7076424 Because most of them drop out by Pre-calculus. The rest drop out by Calculus II. Only few actually make it through all their Math requirements.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:36:12 2015 No.7076425 The sexist "men and women aren't equal" bullshit in this thread can be used as an excuse for all sorts of heinous beliefs, like racism. I don't see why this shit needs to be posted. I wish a mod were in here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:37:13 2015 No.7076427 >>7076236 I think it's hilarious that people actually argue that the type of toy you receive as a kid is what shapes your interest as an adult.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:39:03 2015 No.7076430 >>7076425 Kill urself my man.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:40:50 2015 No.7076433 >>7075839 How does this not instantly end the discussion?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:43:20 2015 No.7076438
File: 45 KB, 539x570, 1416078771663.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because people would much rather shoot down the men than empower the women. The coverage 'Shirtgate' got in comparison to the coverage all the women involved in Rosetta got is testament to that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:44:22 2015 No.7076441 >>7076131 Science is a high-status profession even more than nursing and communications which is why one might be concerned with lack of females in science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:44:32 2015 No.7076442 >>7076325 >I know the title sounds like crap Then post the original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:47:04 2015 No.7076448 >>7076442 Thanks m8, couldn't find it on the spot

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:48:18 2015 No.7076452 as a woman I think feminism has become a form of brainwashing. girls are obsessed with how men perceive them and trying to change people's tastes in aesthetics instead of just doing their own thing and not caring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:52:25 2015 No.7076458 >>7075719 >women outperform men >equal interests in science at an early age >early topkek

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:53:17 2015 No.7076460 >>7076243 >we groom males to do "male things" >we groom females to do "female things" Or maybe males are predisposed to "male things" and vice-versa.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:53:26 2015 No.7076462
File: 105 KB, 1000x1000, 1405727304362.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7076442
Only in communist and socialist countries do they still push this >MUH EQUALITY meme. Looks like many western countries have fallen under this marxist spell.

Anti-science is prevalent even on /sci/, given the idiocy of some of the comments in this thread.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:56:19 2015 No.7076465

>>7076243
It isn't the 90s any more m8. The entirety of society has been about equalizing the playing field going back decades now. For the past 30 years, every little girl has been told she can do whatever she wants when she grows up and you know what? The numbers have been changing. There are a larger percentage of women entering the sciences. The fact that the numbers are not as large as some people would like boils down to the personal academic choices of the students, not anything present in society at large.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 15:56:58 2015 No.7076466

>>7076452
I read a biography of a female movie actress born in the 1930's. I checked for any forms of sexism and female oppression throughout her live. She would not have been treated any differently if she was born today. Feminism was meant to socially empower women but there was nothing to struggle in the first place barring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:02:25 2015 No.7076476 >>7076460 How logical. Do you also use this argument to explain why blacks are more likely to be poor and cause crime?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:03:01 2015 No.7076479
File: 38 KB, 500x305, come at me bro mel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7075719
>Why are women still underrepresented in science?

Because they're generally dumber than men. There's less female geniuses than male geniuses.

>The differences in average IQ between men and women are small in magnitude and inconsistent in direction, although the variability of male scores has been found to be greater than that of females, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.

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

Let the butthurt flow! Let your poison out.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:04:22 2015 No.7076480

>>7076143
>bleeds for 4-6 days every month while the uterus is cutting its own blood supply off, creating cramps and shedding itself
>gives birth to something the size of a watermelon out of the same hole that's tight enough to bring pleasure to your tiny dick
>has to endure the drawbacks that come with having two balls of fat permanently attached to chest that prevents some forms of exercise and mobility without a bra
>social expectations to not be/look like boys, have to remove body hair and pretend it doesn't exsist
>always have to behave 'ladylike' and motherly
>fat women are judged more than their fat male counterparts

Yet still told that they're on "easy mode" in life.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:07:45 2015 No.7076483

>>7076476
It can easily be used to show that the poor, of any race, are more likely to commit crime. That blacks, hispanics, and muslims are more likely to be poor, and thus also more likely to commit crime, is one of the weird side effects of human history.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:07:51 2015 No.7076484 >>7076476 I do, yes

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:08:58 2015 No.7076486 >>7076480 0/10, tumblr, bait, reddit, mandatory reply

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:10:06 2015 No.7076487 >>7076486 U mad bro

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:10:50 2015 No.7076489
File: 10 KB, 271x247, 1401928106894.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7076479
>The mean IQ scores between men and women vary little.[9][13][14][15][16]

Did you read your own article, buddy?

>The differences in average IQ between men and women are small in magnitude and inconsistent in direction, although the variability of male scores has been found to be greater than that of females, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.

Oh I guess you did. kek.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:12:20 2015 No.7076496 File: 92 KB, 1920x1080, 1424186832497.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076489 Your comprehension is a bit off, honey.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:13:22 2015 No.7076499 >>7076489 >>7076496 Both y'all trollin each other

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:14:02 2015 No.7076502

>>7076143
On bitter permavirgins and/or idiots actually think this.

Women may get by on their looks for a while, but when that's gone you're fucked. Unless you have something else to bring to the table (i.e. ingenuity, creativity, hard work) you're fucked. It can't last forever.

When you grow up you're realize that looks are fleeting, but brains are forever (at least until you become senile/ demented).

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:14:40 2015 No.7076504

>>7076483
I agree with everything you said.

But it doesn't remotely suggest that blacks are "predisposed" (which I assume means genetic or inherent) to be criminals.

In the same way that girls liking girly things or boys liking "boyish" things does not imply that being a male makes you "predisposed" to like guy things.

People aren't statistics, they're people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:16:49 2015 No.7076507 >>7076496 Perhaps, but apparently my knowledge of statistics is better than yours.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:18:21 2015 No.7076509 File: 27 KB, 594x538, 1408075518524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076507 I seriously doubt that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:21:25 2015 No.7076515 >>7076504 But they are. Because they're poor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:21:48 2015 No.7076516 >>7076486 I mean, it's obvious that your argument has been wrecked when you need to resort to that.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:22:43 2015 No.7076517

>>7076502
How is that not easy mode?
While lots of women get a free ride by simply having a moist hole between their legs, very very few men can do that and most of us have to work on ourselves in order to prove our worth.

It's a woman's choice if she doesn't improve herself during her life and for a lot of them they don't even need to, they can just marry some fucker and if they want take half of his shit while fucking another man.

Men on the other hand don't have that choice. Either they prove they are worthy of something or they are thrown in the trash bin by society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:23:35 2015 No.7076518 >>7076515 No no, that's not how it works. They are criminals because they are poor, but they are not poor because they are black. Also the transitive property does not work like that for correlations anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:24:17 2015 No.7076519 >>7076480 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:26:13 2015 No.7076523 >>7076519 Really, so apart from resorting to shitty 1st world excuses about women opening their legs to men, tell me of some universal disadvantages men face in life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:28:31 2015 No.7076527 >>7076516 I mean, it's obvious you're a retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:28:36 2015 No.7076529 >>7076519 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:29:21 2015 No.7076532
File: 10 KB, 400x272, projection.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7076517
>this whole post

Seriously though are you 14? You really think women don't have to prove themselves in life? If you met a woman you would instantly dismiss her as someone who didn't have to try at all in life.

It would actually be hilariously ironic. You would be forcing her to prove to you that she actually worked for whatever job/education/money/etc. she has. Not that a woman would talk to someone as delusional as you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:29:35 2015 No.7076533 >>7076529 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:30:35 2015 No.7076535 >>7076533 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:30:37 2015 No.7076536

>>7076516
>I mean, it's obvious that your argument has been wrecked when you need to resort to that.
It's not my argument, it's another annon's.
(dayum we need id's)

It;s hard to tell which came first, the chicken or the egg, but boys and girls liking different things might be either nurture OR nature, which is all I was claiming here >>7076460

Your argument >>7076476 seems to be that my belief that there _may_ be inherit gender-based predispositions is racist somehow.

Then someone else calls you a tumblrina for your use of the "slippery slope fallacy", which somehow invalidates _my_ original argument?

I'm lost, please explain,

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:30:56 2015 No.7076537

>>7076518
Well, except they seem to also be poor because they are black. Being born poor, their parents were likely also poor, their grandparents, their great grand parents, etc. Same for hispanics, and muslims. Having poor ancestors seems to be the most likely cause of being poor, and the exception is the hard working poor ancestors who earned enough money that their children were no longer poor.

For obvious reasons, blacks, hispanics, and muslims have historically poor ancestors in most anglo/european countries and colonies. They are poor because they are black (and thus were slaves or low wage workers in the past). They commit crimes because they are poor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:32:28 2015 No.7076538 >>7076504 >boys liking "boyish" things does not imply that being a male makes you "predisposed" to like guy things. Sure it does. It's hardly conclusive, but a predisposition would certainly explain the results.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:34:40 2015 No.7076545 >>7076532 >ur 14 XD >lel ur a virgin am i rite Congrats, you have no arguments and are not afraid to show it. Not that I expected anything different, shaming tactics are apparently considered arguments by certain people.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:35:22 2015 No.7076547

>>7076518
>but they are not poor because they are black.
Oh, so higher poverty among blacks is entirely coincidental, and they don't have greater hurdles, -or- a predisposition to poverty?
It's not nature, or nurture, it's just a coincidence that so many blacks are poor?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:35:36 2015 No.7076548 >>7075719 Women may be underrepresented in science, but they certainly aren't in education. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_War_Against_Boys.html?id=CZfMyU2R4tgC This is a troll thread. >inb4 I want /pol/ to leave

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:37:14 2015 No.7076549 >>7076535 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:37:29 2015 No.7076550

>>7076536
>Your argument >>7076476 (You) seems to be that my belief that there _may_ be inherit gender-based predispositions is racist somehow.
kek I wasn't the guy you were arguing with. Don't assume there's only one person on /sci/ who isn't a /pol/tard.

I was just trying to point out that arguing nature vs. nuture on something as incredibly complex as "gender" is laughable. I was equating it to a racist ideology to make that point. It could be that socioeconomic factors cause many blacks to be poor (as described in >>7076537), or it could be that blacks are criminals in nature.

You can't cherry pick either side to fit your argument, since, by themselves, neither is really true.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:37:29 2015 No.7076551

>>7076523
>universal disadvantages men face in life.
How about this:

>>7075838
>And what about choice of partners? Women have a far greater expectation of being able to choose between a lucrative career, or finding a partner that will provide for the majority of her financial needs.
>As long as women exercise this option, there will be a "science gap", as well as a "pay gap".

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:38:42 2015 No.7076554 >>7076550 >You can't cherry pick either side to fit your argument, since, by themselves, neither is really true. I wasn't saying it's all nature, just refuting the notion that nature can be ruled out.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:39:44 2015 No.7076556

>>7076545
>>7076545
>Congrats, you have no arguments and are not afraid to show it
Arguments? What exactly am I arguing against again?

>It's a woman's choice if she doesn't improve herself during her life and for a lot of them they don't even need to, they can just marry some fucker and if they want take half of his shit while fucking another man.
oh right, I'm arguing against extreme bias. No thanks, I'd rather laugh at your delusion.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:41:59 2015 No.7076558

>>7076538
>It's hardly conclusive, but a predisposition would certainly explain the results.
Socioeconomic factors and institutional racism is also a perfectly plausible theory. The reality is that neither are strickly true.

>>7076547
>and they don't have greater hurdles, -or- a predisposition to poverty?
Correct. It is not "or" it is "and/or", also not weighted 50/50.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:42:16 2015 No.7076560 File: 163 KB, 800x800, 1422206943125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076556 As expected, escape buzzwords. Fucking lol.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:43:35 2015 No.7076563 >>7076560 >bias >delusion You consider these buzzwords? I changed my mind, you are neither biased nor delusional. You're an idiot.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:43:59 2015 No.7076564

>>7076523
>tell me of some universal disadvantages men face in life.
We're a glut on the market.
Women only outnumber men because they live further into their 80's and 90's.
At birth, males outnumber females 105 to 100.
Plus, since men have a longer "dating lifespan" than women, there are far more single men than women, making it harder for us to find partners.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:45:00 2015 No.7076567 >>7076523 >tell me of some universal disadvantages men face in life. We have almost no control over our reproductive rights.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:46:23 2015 No.7076570

>>7076523
>tell me of some universal disadvantages men face in life.
TFW all quota systems work against the white man, supposedly because "white men rule the world", which isn't true, but even if it were , that still leaves 99.99% of white men in charge of jack shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:46:28 2015 No.7076571 File: 8 KB, 232x197, 1422575733707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7076563 Your opinion is biased and based on delusions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:48:01 2015 No.7076573 >>7076523 >tell me of some universal disadvantages men face in life Due to shorter lifespans, we're compelled to work a greater percentage of our lives before our shorter retirement.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:48:43 2015 No.7076576

>>7076564
>We're a glut on the market.
Too many men, what a tragedy

>Women only outnumber men because they live further into their 80's and 90's.
Too many grandmas, what a tragedy.

>At birth, males outnumber females 105 to 100.
Too many men, what a tragedy

>there are far more single men than women, making it harder for us to find partners.
You can't get laid, what a tragedy

How about you point out some actual reasons like how men are disproportionately more likely to commit suicide, be victims of violent crime, and are more likely to be denied custody in divorce cases. Those are actual inequalities where women have the advantage over men.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:49:58 2015 No.7076578 >>7076523 >tell me of some universal disadvantages men face in life. we have far less social privilege and legal privilege.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:52:28 2015 No.7076585

>>7076523
More likely to be victims of assault
More likely to be victims of murder
More likely to be homeless
More likely to be imprisioned
More likely to commit suicide
More likely to be depressed
More likely to have heart attacks
More likely to have strokes
More likely to suffer injuries at work
Live shorter lives, on average
Less likely to go to college
Less likely to graduate college
Less likely to have children
Institutionalized discrimination
>divorce courts are fair and balanced

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:55:47 2015 No.7076592

>>7076576
>Too many men, what a tragedy
That's easy for you to say, but this disparity makes women more "in demand", confers greater social privilege, and shifts the burden of career and proving solidly onto the men in most relationships.

If you're a woman, or one of the 9x% of men with a partner, I'm sure it seems like a distant and unrealistic problem, but it's a market force that affects all relationships.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:57:35 2015 No.7076595

>>7076585
>More likely to be victims of assault
...from perpetrators who are men.

>More likely to be victims of murder
...from perpetrators who are men.

>More likely to be homeless
More likely to be substance abusers or have mental illness.

>More likely to be imprisioned
More likely to commit crimes.

>Less likely to have children
Women have children more than men? WTF does that even mean? Parthenogenesis?

>Institutionalized discrimination
Yes, that's why men have such low salaries and employment rates.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 16:59:28 2015 No.7076599 >>7076243 >muh anecdotal evidence Was a writing a paper for peer-review or was I talking to someone on 4chan about women being catty?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:02:35 2015 No.7076604 >>7076595 >Women have children more than men? WTF does that even mean? Parthenogenesis? Percentage of childless people over 45, about 10% of females are childless after 40, 13-15% of males.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:02:46 2015 No.7076605 159 economics graduate here, how on earth is Physics/Astronomy that high and why are there so few degrees around the national average?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:04:31 2015 No.7076610

>>7076585
Those are all true

Here's some for women:

Childbirth/Menstrual cycle
More likely to get STDs
Make less money, on average (indepedent of "wage gap" BS)
Assumed to be stupider than men
Weaker than men
Higher rates of cancer
Depending on where you're born you can't own property
Depending on where you're born you ARE property
More likely to be an orphan
Less likely to have post secondary education
More likely to sexually harassed
institutionalized sexism
>society is fair and balanced

Either way people get shit on. We should fix it both ways, not argue like faggots.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:07:13 2015 No.7076614 >>7076604 That's because there isn't a completely 1:1 ratio of women:men.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:09:43 2015 No.7076616 >>7076610 >Higher rates of cancer Which is basically just because they live longer on average. But yes, both sides have their (dis)advantages and can't really choose, which is sad, but likely to be part of life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:11:35 2015 No.7076618 >>7076462 >implying this isn't just as much of a thing in the USA

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:12:29 2015 No.7076620 >>7076616 >Which is basically just because they live longer on average. Not necessarily. Ever heard of estrogen?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:13:50 2015 No.7076621

>>7076616
>but likely to be part of life.
Yeah but the reason "feminism" (not tumblr feminism, but people who actually support equality) is such a big thing these days is because it's the 21st fucking century.

We can make these disadvantages less apparent through technology and our collective knowledge as a species. Hence this thread: Is it an issue that women are underrepresented in science? Are we doing everything we can to make sure that the inherent disadvantages they face aren't preventing them from going into science? A lot of people think the answer is no, and they're trying to fix it.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:16:53 2015 No.7076625

>>7075850
>Assumptions, the post
Even if we assume girls are more socially interdependent upon one another, that would mean they would be more used to peer review, as they would consult their closely tied friends during decisionmaking.

You seem to be arguing that women have it easy in the world and are used to people agreeing with them, so actually having to defend a proposal or decision would be foreign to them. Seems pretty fallacious to me.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:19:37 2015 No.7076628

>>7076621
A lot of people get threatened by the idea of people being disadvantaged and social attempts to level the playing field. So much so that they cannot discuss it in any mature way, it just turns to /pol/ vitriol and them exposing their inexperienced, unsubstantiated view that the world is a dichotomy (tumblr femnazis and libtards vs Normals).

Of course we should encourage diversity in science whenever possible. Sometimes that means creating funding for specific groups. This is hard to swallow when you are a Normal White Male but it's important to consider the future of society, not just looking for an excuse as to why you didn't get your scholarship.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:25:12 2015 No.7076634 File: 484 KB, 275x210, awt6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7075719 >OP watching this thread like pic related

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:31:28 2015 No.7076642

Some ideas I have
>For applications, before interviews or shit where you can't do this, don't let people mark gender, race, ethnicity or religion leave that shit to be unknown so as to prevent any perceived or actual discrimination
> Don't push people to go into fields, if they don't want to they don't want to, however if someone genuinely does want to enter a field, support them no matter what

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:34:33 2015 No.7076646 >>7076642 >support them no matter what And how would you legislate that anon?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:39:30 2015 No.7076661

>>7076452
>girls are obsessed with how men perceive them
its been like this well before feminism came into play, women want to find a good mating partner through their own arbitrary reasons just like men do.

>and trying to change people's tastes in aesthetics
only landwhales do this for obvious reasons

>instead of just doing their own thing and not caring.
see, most women don't think like that, they would rather go after a man so that they can stay at home all day. women really do have it well off in today's society so its no surprise that they dont want that to go away.

feminists today however want it both ways, they want an easy life but at the same time they want to be able to become scientists and engineers. they dont realize being a scientist and engineer is not easy however so they end up failing because they've never had to work hard for something in their lives.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:42:03 2015 No.7076664

>>7076610
>Childbirth
voluntary choice

>More likely to get STDs
caused by voluntary choices

>Make less money
Because they can choose to rely on a man rather than pursuing the same career paths with the same dedication.

>Assumed to be stupider than men
[citation needed]

>Higher rates of cancer
But you still live years longer than men

>Depending on where you're born you can't own property
Not in any civilized country.

>Depending on where you're born you ARE property
Not in any civilized country.

>More likely to be an orphan
Not outside China.

>Less likely to have post secondary education
Not in any civilized country.

>More likely to sexually harassed
Comes with being in greater sexual demand, and a greater ability to sexually manipulate others, including superiors in work/academia.

>institutionalized sexism
On paper, less than what men face.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:42:44 2015 No.7076668 >>7076480 >woman finds a hard working husband >lives at home to do whatever she wants for the rest of her life while the husband works indefinitely. sure is hard being a woman in today's society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:43:04 2015 No.7076670 >>7076614 >That's because there isn't a completely 1:1 ratio of women:men. It's also because women have a lower standard deviation in almost every statistic, including number of children.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:43:45 2015 No.7076673 >>7076646 Scholarships, purely need based with race/gender/religion not a factor

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:44:51 2015 No.7076676

>>7076502
>Women may get by on their looks for a while, but when that's gone you're fucked. Unless you have something else to bring to the table (i.e. ingenuity, creativity, hard work) you're fucked. It can't last forever.
divorce + alimony for life, thats how it lasts forever.

>When you grow up you're realize that looks are fleeting, but brains are forever (at least until you become senile/ demented).
men realize this, but women can just leech off of a successful man right now. its incredibly easy mode for them.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:46:40 2015 No.7076680

>>7076625
>You seem to be arguing that women have it easy in the world and are used to people agreeing with them,
Yes. This is an observed fact, perhaps not adequately explained by my hypotheses, but clearly women face less criticism for their ideas.
If you're a woman, you are in greater social demand. People listen to what you say more, invite you to more functions, are less likely to ridicule you for fringe ideas, etc.

All of this makes women more acclimatized to management, and less acclimatized to engineering, for instance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:48:08 2015 No.7076688 >>7076664 >>Childbirth >voluntary choice u wot?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:48:37 2015 No.7076689 >>7076518 how about this black people are poor because they are dumb, and that alone sets off a chain of events that causes them to be criminals more often than not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:50:59 2015 No.7076695 >women >science huehuehuehue

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:52:32 2015 No.7076700

>>7076523
>tell me of some universal disadvantages men face in life.
men have done nearly all the work in creating everything we have now. nearly all the knowledge we have of the universe comes from men. men are expected to continue doing this as well. However I would argue even though all of this is a burden its actually an advantage to men because its only a matter of time before we figure out how to make women completely useless through artificial wombs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:53:49 2015 No.7076703 >>7076688 >u wot? wot nothing. Rape aside childbirth is always voluntarily. Even unplanned pregnancies are completely predictable and avoidable, nobody every get pregnant "by surprise".

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:56:36 2015 No.7076710 >>7076703 You cannot sit there and go "oh childbirth is a non issue because you can just not get pregnant". Are you fucking serious? Someone HAS to get pregnant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:57:52 2015 No.7076711 >>7076710 Are the rapist orcs or what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:58:58 2015 No.7076714 >>7076710 >Someone HAS to get pregnant. Why do I find that sentence so funny?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 17:59:42 2015 No.7076719 >>7076710 >Someone HAS to get pregnant. at this point everyone should realize this guy is a retard troll.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 18:03:57 2015 No.7076732

>>7076719
No I'm really not trolling (unless you're talking about the other guy).

There really isn't anything voluntary about childbirth. It's nature, it's not like everyone can stop getting pregnant. I mean, we'd die out as a species. Some one has to have children, and if you're a woman you have to give birth. You can't call it a non issue.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 18:14:08 2015 No.7076748

>>7076732
alright ill bite.

1. child birth is voluntary for obvious reasons, the fact that some women choose not to have children makes this obvious.

2. yes if everyone stopped we would die out as a species, species DO die out so this is obviously possible

3. if you're a women who chooses to give birth then yes its an issue, its not an issue otherwise. however it seems like you are overselling childbirth since modern medical science allows it to be extremely safe.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 18:21:19 2015 No.7076761

>>7076748
1. individually this is true, but I'm talking about general disadvantages women have compared to men, not about personal choices. Half the shit on this list >>7076585 is based on decisions men make in life as well, that doesn't mean you get to dismiss them.

2. sure

3. So basically you agree. I'm not saying childbirth is a huge issue, I'm just perplexed that someone would go "meh, women could just not get pregnant". That's just...well...stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 18:38:07 2015 No.7076783 >>7076628 >Of course we should encourage diversity in science whenever possible Why

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 18:42:02 2015 No.7076794 >>7076479 By the same logic there's more male retards than female retards, so women are also smarter than men. The mean IQ is the same, however.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 18:43:11 2015 No.7076797

This is annoying, there are already more females than males in higher education. If they choose to do gender studies instead of electrical engineering, then it shouldn't be society's responsibility to force them. Also stop the female only shit.

There is exactly 2 woman working in my engineering department, and no one treats them any differently. They have proven what they can do. It's an old chinese and old serbian lady. How many home grown white girls would be willing to do these degrees? Asian and indian girls do fucking fine in engineering, but these princesses wouldn't even think about these degrees.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:02:10 2015 No.7076827

>>7076761
>I'm just perplexed that someone would go "meh, women could just not get pregnant". That's just...well...stupid.
its not stupid, its a very viable option that does exist and IS chosen by women. as technology progresses maybe women wont ever need to become pregnant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:03:25 2015 No.7076830 >>7076783 If people don't have a fighting chance to succeed they eventually get pissed and actively attack the ruling class. This is also the reason for welfare, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:05:13 2015 No.7076835 >>7076830 Oh and also anyone in power wants to make sure the intelligent and resourceful don't end up stuck in the pleb caste where they can easily start an effective rebellion or just form a new government.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:33:13 2015 No.7076877 >>7076410 Shit nigga, you picked wrong. The grade 11 course is shitty and it isn't a prerequisite for the grade 12 course, which actually focuses on human biology... i.e. the one that matters.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:34:58 2015 No.7076880 >>7076479 >although the variability of male scores has been found to be greater than that of females So, females are basically a little better built, so they vary less. That makes sense, kind of.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:42:13 2015 No.7076898
File: 21 KB, 396x400, wrong retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7076880
>So, females are basically a little better built, so they vary less.
LOL NO. Less variation implies that intelligence doesn't mean much to females since there's little variation in intelligence genes.

>That makes sense, kind of.
No it doesn't. You know fuck-all about evolutionary theory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:45:00 2015 No.7076903 >>7076898 >No reasoning, basically just "I don't like that, you are wrong!" Come on. If a product has less variance the production process is usually better, I think that's fairly agreeable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:46:31 2015 No.7076905 >>7076903 mfw anon doesn't see that you're just being silly.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:51:39 2015 No.7076916

>>7075832
I swear you are a fucking retard. Women face zero, absolutely ZERO discrimination in a Physics course. Women are generally more emotionally driven than objectively or curiously. Whether that is a societal or genetic thing, I don't know, but the facts are that most women who enter a physics course excel and face no pressures or bias at all.
You are talking out of your bum my friend.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:53:53 2015 No.7076921

>>7076903
>Come on. If a product has less variance the production process is usually better, I think that's fairly agreeable.
>producing shit with less variance is better
id rather take the high variance for the small chance to get some quality products than low variance garbage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:56:54 2015 No.7076929 >>7076710 >Someone HAS to get pregnant. Sure, but no _individual_ is _obligated_ to get pregnant.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:58:41 2015 No.7076934

>>7075719
If women want to enter a STEM field, I have no issue. Regardless of who they are or what their gender is, if they can do the work and want to do the work then they should be allowed in. The worst thing that could be done is hold a cap on the number of male students that could take such a field just so the ratio of females to males is higher.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 19:59:03 2015 No.7076935 >>7076921 Like anybody wants to hear your opinion on this.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:00:19 2015 No.7076937

>>7076794
>By the same logic there's more male retards than female retards, so women are also smarter than men.
No, it means most women are smarter than some men.
The issue at hand though (women in science), relates to the proportion of each gender at a high IQ level, where women are underrepresented.
This should, and does, result in fewer women in science.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:00:27 2015 No.7076938

>>7076441
And what about lower status jobs like janitors, mechanics, etc? Since they are lower status it's ok for women to disregard it? This is what always confused me about the "women aren't represented enough on STEM careers". If it's about equality, why not moan about low status jobs that are 90% male dominated? I wish that people were upfront and said "we want women to be represented in high status jobs, we don't care about physical/low status jobs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:01:29 2015 No.7076939 >>7076480 >>7076489 >>7076517 only a few sweeping generalizations in this thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:02:39 2015 No.7076940 >>7076134 Yes. It concerns me that SJWs are screaming about women not being in science or technology related careers, but stay quiet when oil rig workers, construction workers, carpenters, trash-men or janitors are mostly men.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:03:19 2015 No.7076941

>>7075719

Why isn't there anyone asking mor for this girl ? I want more of this girl !

>>7076634

Also there is less women in science because of women genetics and because of society, is the part of genetics significant ? or is it society that matter the most ? dunno.

The question is why is everyone worried about the fact that there is not enough women in science but not worried that there is even less women working in civil constructions ?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:04:14 2015 No.7076943

>>7076071
I've worked in a textile quality controll center , there where 3 Labs, a chemestry one, a dyeing one and a technological one, they where fillef with womans and they forme pack. They where used to make horrid pranks to overflow the offerte Labs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:04:46 2015 No.7076944 >>7076935 where do you think you are? this is 4chan you faggot.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:05:15 2015 No.7076945

>>7076903
>Come on. If a product has less variance the production process is usually better, I think that's fairly agreeable.
But we aren't all made in a factory to specs.
Variation of individuals is good for the species.
The key here, is that until modern times, almost all women are guaranteed to pass on their genes,and there's very little competition among women to reproduce.
Men, on the other hand need to be more adaptable as a group since far fewer men could reproduce and still impregnate all women.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:05:42 2015 No.7076946 >>7076425 >Oh no! People are discussing something that doesn't agree with my ideology! SHUT IT DOWN

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:05:58 2015 No.7076947 >>7076938 Women should be able to achieve what they want as easily as men do. If they wanted to be mechanics we'd hope that they'd be able to achieve that with similar amounts of hard work as well.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:07:14 2015 No.7076952

>>7075719
I know the answer. There are obvious problems with the retarded cultural programming women get, but I think the more fundamental problem is as follows.

It's because the female hormonal system fucking sucks. You know how men with low testosterone feel tired, weak, have low motivation to do things, etc.? Women feel that way all the time, only much worse because on top of it they almost universally don't have enough cortisol. The stress hormone cortisol is necessary for performing at a high level, either mental or physically. Lance Armstrong used to inject himself with it before events.

Nature gave women the shitty end of the stick because that's how you make someone content with sitting on their ass and pumping out babies/changing diapers all the time - you just make them too weak, lethargic, and slow-witted to do anything else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:07:15 2015 No.7076953 >>7076676 Woman gets money and status, man gets sex and status, they both get something If you marry someone for no other reason than you love them, you are doing the right thing, but might not last as long.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:07:31 2015 No.7076954 >>7076940 those jobs are dirty and hard, women don't deserve those jobs, men can keep those.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:08:51 2015 No.7076955

>>7076945
Look, I never said that this makes women per se better than men. I just said that apparently nature plays safe when it comes to women, and rolls the dice when it comes to men. The product of both is apparently ideal, evolutionary. That makes none of them better, just different (but I guess this is usually not the consensus of an average 4chan discussion)

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:08:54 2015 No.7076956

Quoth Stephen Hawkings-- "IQ is for losers."
It doesn't necessarily determine your scientific reasoning ability. I'm pretty sure you just have to be meticulous, thorough, open-minded, yet skeptical. Women can do that.

And honestly I don't think that those who are more talented in a certain discipline will necessarily get farther in that field because of it. There are many factors that go into academic success, and IQ is next to worthless in measuring that.

To quote Carl Sagan (who, by the way, totally voiced the need for more women and people of color in science), "every child is born a natural scientist." Eventually, it's beat out of them. Girls are socialized to be more submissive, so they're least likely to challenge the stigma of science and pursue it.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:10:54 2015 No.7076959

>>7076947
And yet there are no articles about systemic discrimination in the mechanic field with women. Could it be that it's a job too lowly for women to find desirable? Once again, there is nothing wrong with that line of thinking. I just wish the SJWs simply were upfront about their agenda.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:11:02 2015 No.7076960

>>7076947
His point is that there a countless "do-gooders" that want to help the poor ladies get into science, but these same good Samaritans aren't going to help men get out of the oppressive jobs.
Where's the gender-inequality outrage when it's men getting the short end of the stick?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:11:16 2015 No.7076962

>>7076952
Oh by the way, all that needs to be done is for women to start supplementing themselves with these hormones (preferably from a young age because I suspect lack of testosterone affects brain development negatively as well). I started injecting myself with testosterone (only 2 times the normal female dose, 1/5 the male dose) a year ago and my power level is now over 9000. The natural female existence is a pathetic one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:12:29 2015 No.7076966 >>7076955 >Look, I never said that this makes women per se better than men Sure you did, assuming you're the anon who posted: >>7076903 >If a product has less variance the production process is usually better

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:12:42 2015 No.7076967 >>7076956 And yet in modern societies like Sweden, where women are treated >= than men since birth, men still hold the majority in the scientific community. Maybe most women don't like science jobs to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:13:54 2015 No.7076971 >>7076960 Jobs aren't oppressive. If you don't like it, don't take the job. This isn't Russia

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:16:29 2015 No.7076976 >>7076971 You're right. Which is why women being underrepresented in science is simply the fact that women don't choose to be in science related careers. Just like they don't work in oil rigs or car workshops.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:18:08 2015 No.7076981

>>7076960
Yeah, we get it. I honestly don't think anyone in this thread is defending radical third-wave feminism. We're just pointing out that people saying women are dumb, or women can't into science, or women blah blah; are flat out wrong. They just are.

Saying "why don't more women do construction" or whatever is the same fucking argument as "why don't women do more science". People want to figure out why there is a disparity in these things, it's a legitimate thing. Perhaps women are being oppressed, people want to fix that. Maybe men are being oppressed in other areas. People want to fix that too, despite what you read on tumblr. Are you really so against it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:18:49 2015 No.7076984 >>7076960 You're half right. My argument was to point out the hypocrisy of the SJWs when they say women are underrepresented in science fields. Hint: it's not about equality in all workforces, it's about "equality" in high-status jobs.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:19:18 2015 No.7076985

>>7076956
>There are many factors that go into academic success, and IQ is next to worthless in measuring that.
Sorry, but IQ is a good predictor of academic success.

>"every child is born a natural scientist." Eventually, it's beat out of them.
Still no. Sure, people are all born with a natural curiosity, but for most people that curiosity is easily satiated, leaving them disdainful of higher learning by their early to mid teens.
Besides curiosity, most people also lack the intellect to be good at science, even if they are interested.
Most people don't have curiosity "beaten out of them", and no amount of coddling will improve someone's underlying intelligence.

>Girls are socialized to be more submissive
Not in the world I live in. Then again, my wife is a retired USMC drill instructor, so maybe I'm seeing an atypical cross section of modern women.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:20:15 2015 No.7076987

>>7076967
"science jobs" are pretty shitty in general because of the constant drive to get adequate funding for your research, which is often predetermined because you have to go through seven levels of hell to even get a phd so you can conduct your own research, then it's just back to selling your soul for funding.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:23:03 2015 No.7076993

>>7076971
>If you don't like it, don't take the job.
The private sector, military and government have never provided enough jobs for everyone that wants one.
The only thing worse than a shit job is no job.
Someone is compelled to take these jobs just out of not having any other choice.
Funny that those so compelled are almost exclusively men.
but muh "men rule the world"! "they have all the privilege!"

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:25:43 2015 No.7077001

>>7076424
>be EE
>in a discrete signals class
>0 women
When I took Cal II tons of people dropped but it didn't seem like the females dropped more than the males. Diff Equations is a different story, by the end of the semester there were 5 girls left in a class of 40.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:27:35 2015 No.7077009 >>7076966 I said the production process is better, less fault-prone. That doesn't necessarily make the product better. It's just a statistical thing.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:28:03 2015 No.7077011

>>7076981
>Maybe men are being oppressed in other areas. People want to fix that too, despite what you read on tumblr.
[citation needed]

My point is there are clearly people trying to elevate women, but there doesn't seem to be any organization dedicated to helping men.
Probably because our society expects men to help themselves without assistance.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:28:51 2015 No.7077012

>>7076985
My brother-- through the ROOF smart-- is failing academically because he has to work a full time job to pay tuition and also just to live, take care of himself, AND study for 5+ hours a day for physics classes. I'm sure his IQ reflects his intelligence but academically, he's stuck. It's complicated.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:29:04 2015 No.7077014 >>7076680 Your observation makes it fact? Do you have any broader statistics to backup your claim? Or just a gut feeling?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:29:50 2015 No.7077017

What if we all use the statistics colected by our institutions of choice to see not how many men and women enter a science & math field, but how many drop out or graduate. I'm pretty sure loads of women enter these fields, but drop out more often. At least that's the conclusion I have arrived by observing my peers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:30:08 2015 No.7077019 >>7077001 women cant socialize their way through mathematics. >>7076993 men do rule the world somewhat but they worked hard for it. sjw try to trivialize the work they put in by calling it privilege.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:31:03 2015 No.7077020 >>7077009 >less fault-prone. That doesn't necessarily make the product better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:31:25 2015 No.7077021

>>7076956
>Quoth Stephen Hawkings-- "IQ is for losers."
And yet IQ seems to be the major limiting factor for STEM fields.

>To quote Carl Sagan (who, by the way, totally voiced the need for more women and people of color in science), "every child is born a natural scientist."

And since IQ is at least partly genetic, I'm going to have to disagree with Carl here. I'm sorry, but Sara Palin was never going to be a scientist. Maths are hard, most, MOST people just cannot understand them. I'm not trying to be elitist, it just is what it is. People who find calculus difficult are not going to get into STEM. Okay maybe Comp. Sci, or IT.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:31:35 2015 No.7077022 >>7077012 you are probably overselling his intelligence. if he was smart he would realize that in his situation the best option is to only take 2 classes or so every semester and make sure he aces them instead of taking 3-4 and failing them.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:32:52 2015 No.7077027

>>7077012
>My brother-- through the ROOF smart-- is failing academically because he has to work a full time job to pay tuition and also just to live, take care of himself, AND study for 5+ hours a day
Sure, but given the same circumstances, a lower IQ would hinder progress further.
Imagine if he had to study 6-8 hours a day because the material was harder for him.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:33:12 2015 No.7077028

>>7077011
There are organizations, but they're really shitty. Like MRAs, they don't give two shits about men, and they don't do any kind of activism, don't donate to male causes, or help men of color. In theory, though, there's plenty they could do. There are issues unique to men that need fixing but I don't think there's a serious organization for that yet.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:34:54 2015 No.7077032

>>7077014
>Your observation makes it fact? Do you have any broader statistics to backup your claim? Or just a gut feeling?
Face it, women ARE in far greater social demand.
I know it, you know it, yer momma knows it.
Sociology being what it is, there's no hard data on this, but I think it's universal enough that well all see it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:35:05 2015 No.7077033 >>7077020 It's not doublespeak, you mongoloid. A good manufacturing process doesn't guarantee a high quality product. It simply guarantees consistent quality throughout mass produced goods. A non-defective product isn't necessarily a high quality one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:35:15 2015 No.7077034 >>7077011 What do men need helping with?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:36:12 2015 No.7077037 There aren't enough women at the IQ levels needed in physical sciences or math.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:37:05 2015 No.7077044

>>7077020
No that's not doublespeak, that's just your wrong deduction. Say you have two machines producing nails, one better than the other (meaning less varying products). Does that make every nail from the better machine better than every nail of the worse machine? No, obviously not.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:37:18 2015 No.7077045

>>7077028
Well, what politician is going to accept the "Divorce is unfair towards men" as a platform and sponsor a bill in congress that tries to rebalance the outcome? No one. Ever. They would never be elected, it's political suicide to actually try to fix some of the broken aspects of society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:37:25 2015 No.7077046 >>7077034 It'd be nice if I didn't have to sign my soul over to the government draft just because I happened to be born male.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:37:45 2015 No.7077048

>>7077022
>most jobs want the youngest applicants available to be able to benefit more from their productive lives
>the older you are, the less likely you are to get a job vs a similarly skilled and educated applicant
>if his brother does this, he'll be significantly older than most of his peers when he graduates and enters the workforce of his desired field
Besides, having a high IQ doesn't guarantee having "common sense".

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:38:18 2015 No.7077051

>>7077022
That's what he's doing. But, incase you don't know. physics is hard as balls and requires ALOT of studying. His roommate, also a physics major, had the money for school so he didn't have to have a job, and he used the free time to study, now he's actually doing research for money. Same class, same apartment, both smart guys, but 1 had time bc his ass was paid, and the other didn't.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:38:18 2015 No.7077052

>>7076225
this is a big problem in germany. In most primary schools the male teachers represent way less than 10%. Politicians are desperately trying to get more men into it. I think reality is, males are much much more money focused and that alone is a simple reason not to go into primary education (while women on the other hand often ignore the bad salary. I think it's the same reason many states have differences in average male / female salary)

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:38:33 2015 No.7077055

>>7077019
>men do rule the world somewhat but they worked hard for it. sjw try to trivialize the work they put in by calling it privilege.
The people who rule the world are disproportionately (but not exclusively) male, but these men are a tiny minority of all men. Far less than 1%.
It's not like we all have a big meeting once a month where every man has a say.
Saying "men rule the world" is like saying "the Jews run the banks".
OK, they're over-represented, but the average Jew has no influence over the banking industry.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:39:24 2015 No.7077058

>>7077032
You're just projecting your perceptions onto the world at large. You haven't defined social demand, proved that woman have more of it, and even if women were to have this quality that it would matter in the topic at hand. If everyone knows it it should be easy to find a source affirming your claim.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:40:30 2015 No.7077061 >>7077045 And 60 years ago what politician would run on a campaign of equal rights for blacks? Things change, give it time. Society is a big, ugly thing that doesn't like change, even when it's a good change.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:41:00 2015 No.7077062 >>7077046 That's a fair point, although the likelihood of a draft being called again is pretty slim. Any other areas?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:41:31 2015 No.7077065

>>7076427
from my own experience i can say getting lego toys and creatively building things like trucks/gearboxes/differentials with it as a young kid it had a huge influence in my interests and job perspectives (studying physics now, because i still have the urge to find out how things work)

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:42:03 2015 No.7077066

>>7077033
>It's not doublespeak, you mongoloid. A good manufacturing process doesn't guarantee a high quality product.
The post said when a production process was less "fault-prone" it didn't make the product better.
Soooo... a less "faulty" product _isn't_ better?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:44:16 2015 No.7077068

>>7077034
>What do men need helping with?
Try reading the thread.
The are far more often compelled to take low paying, dangerous, and generally undesirable jobs.
Our society has far greater expectation of men being the family provider, and is more intolerant of men working part-time or not at all.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:45:10 2015 No.7077070

>>7077066
That's probably also something male: Obsessively comparing stuff. Everything is a competition.

Also, you don't seem to understand statistics. Saying that the variance or even expectation value of a random variable is greater or lower than another doesn't allow you to compare every individual result. That's a pretty common fallacy among racists and sexists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:47:40 2015 No.7077074 >>7077045 I wasn't really talking about divorce, but there are issues that men have that are ignored bc treatment for those issues are usually directed towards women... like body image or mental issues

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:48:43 2015 No.7077076 >>7077051 how many classes is he taking? Again you should never be failing classes, take 1 class at a time and take your bullshit English/fine arts classes all at once somewhere else. No matter whats happening its pretty much your fault on this.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:48:47 2015 No.7077077

>>7077058
>If everyone knows it it should be easy to find a source affirming your claim.
Ask yer father.
See also: Ladies Night (or any other night at a bar)
See also: Who pays on a date.
See also: Who asks who to prom.
See also: Population of men vs women of dating age.
See also: Any stats relating to online dating
See also: Ask anybody that has a social life.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:49:57 2015 No.7077080

>>7077048
>people will pick the younger lower GPA applicant over the slightly older 3.9+ GPA applicant
bait/10

>Besides, having a high IQ doesn't guarantee having "common sense".
I agree here, thats why I said if he was INTELLIGENT he wouldnt be in this situation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:50:04 2015 No.7077081 >>7077062 >Any other areas? How about people financially compelled to military service? How about:>>7077068

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:52:36 2015 No.7077086

>>7077070
>doesn't allow you to compare every individual result
We aren't talking about "every individual result", we're talking about men and women in general.
Besides, the analogy is flawed, "faulty products" aren't the same thing as genetic diversity.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:54:48 2015 No.7077090

>>7077080
Dat lack of reading comprehension. I specifically mentioned similarly qualified applicants. If most companies have a choice between 2 applicants and their only difference is age, the younger one will be picked. Especially in this case in which he'll be older with the same experience of younger applicants. Also, you said that his choice implied his IQ wasn't that high.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:56:09 2015 No.7077094 >>7077076 Taking 1 class at a time probably isn't a good idea. He's already behind and just needs to graduate before racking up assloads of debt

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:56:55 2015 No.7077097

>>7077086
>Besides, the analogy is flawed, "faulty products" aren't the same thing as genetic diversity.
Yes, it is. Both are usually normally distributed processes, which is sufficient for the comparison. And again, talking about women and men in general doesn't allow any conclusions, as whatever implication your reasoning on a large chunk of people have, they do concern individuals. So in the end you have to go through the struggle of treating every woman individually no matter what.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:57:00 2015 No.7077099 >>7077090 >I specifically mentioned similarly qualified applicants which is not the case here since hes failing his courses. nice try bud

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:59:16 2015 No.7077102

If there is a process that produces 0.1% more products that are defective, but 25% more that are of quality superior to the baseline and there is another process that produces 0.1% less products that are defective, but all of the products that met quality standards are of baseline quality, which process is objectively better?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 20:59:19 2015 No.7077103

>>7077094
>Taking 1 class at a time probably isn't a good idea.
taking 1 class and acing it is better than taking 2-3 classes and failing all of them.

>and just needs to graduate before racking up assloads of debt
what kind of fucked up school do you go to that doesnt allow you to pay for individual classes only.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:00:26 2015 No.7077107 >>7077099 And if he tries your approach he's too old when he graduates. In both instances, anon's brother is boned.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:01:25 2015 No.7077109 >>7077099 Well I meant "failing academically" as in either delaying his courses so he can work and support himself, or taking the courses and not being able to study enough. I'm not sure how his grades stand now

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:03:26 2015 No.7077113

I have to ask, as a woman pursuing a career in physics even, does sexism in STEM actually exist? It's something I hear about all the time, I constantly read shit on ratemyprofessor saying certain professors are sexist and automatically give women bad grades, I constantly see articles saying shit like applicants with female names are more likely to be denied for labs, etc. Yet I've never experienced or witnessed any of this myself, and my professors (male and female) have always encouraged and praised me.

Am I just living in a bubble or is the media feeding me lies?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:06:11 2015 No.7077119 >>7077107 yup that's why I'm looking for a college that'll pay my ass. 100% of demonstrated financial need=almost a full ride for me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:06:44 2015 No.7077121 >>7077113 It probably does happen, but not to the extent that the media hypes it to. It's probably less common than it was a decade ago.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:07:07 2015 No.7077123 >>7077107 being old and knowing your shit is infinitely better than being old and not knowing anything which is the track he seems to be on right now. you arent very good at decision making are you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:08:18 2015 No.7077124 >>7077109 that sure is a weird definition of "failing academically", I guess you are right if that's how you define it then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:10:59 2015 No.7077129 >>7077081 I said compelled military service was a fair point of inequality towards men, but at the same time it probably won't end up actually impacting men since a draft is unlikely to be called again.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:12:00 2015 No.7077133 >>7077077 Sorry, but anecdotes aren't evidence of your claim women are more socially desirable. Nice try though, I'm sure if you put your mind to it you'll find something!

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:13:09 2015 No.7077137

>>7077113
well as far as professors "just giving women bad grades," no. But professors will tend to neglect female students and that can stunt learning & motivation. There have been studies that prove that professors rate female applicants' work as being more valuable, and more competent, than their identical male counterparts. The males also recieved more funding.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:13:19 2015 No.7077138

>>7077097
>Both are usually normally distributed processes, which is sufficient for the comparison.
Not really. Manufacturing requires (and achieves) practically identical products. Consider two toasters of the same model.
One isn't going to toast faster, while the other is less likely to burn the toast.
Two toasters from the same assembly line aren't going to compete for "better toaster".
Any non-identical (within specs) toaster is defective, and discarded if detected.
Humans are diverse in general, men more so than women.

>So in the end you have to go through the struggle of treating every woman individually no matter what.
Sigh. We're talking about philosophical generalizations about men and women.
Good luck developing a philosophical observation about each of the 7 billion individuals that make up the human race.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:14:21 2015 No.7077139 >>7077068 Great, you're definitely right about the expectations, gender roles in our society are very unequal. Surely you support feminism then, which seeks to expose and revert these skewed gender roles?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:15:26 2015 No.7077141 >>7077137 correction -- they rated the females as LESS competent and such

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:16:16 2015 No.7077143 >>7077129 >a draft is unlikely to be called again. Sure, and then I pointed out that many men are compelled to military service out of financial desperation rather than a draft. What am I missing here?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:17:02 2015 No.7077145 >hashtag Dropped just for the title Why do people still do this on this day, it's a tool designed to automatically make your sentence less serious and more stupid

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:17:25 2015 No.7077146

>>7077081
hey, the military is a good deal
>200$k+ for education
>12-20$ an hour while your in
>learn a trade

like if you just be a clerk or a mechanic or something it seriously sets you up for life. provided you don't turn into an alcoholic and spend all your money.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:18:33 2015 No.7077149

>>7077139
>Surely you support feminism then, which seeks to expose and revert these skewed gender roles?
The point was that feminism isn't concerned with skewed gender roles in general, just those that adversely affect women.
I guess that's why they call it "feminism" and not "gender eqaulism".

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:19:46 2015 No.7077153 >>7077146 >hey, the military is a good deal Then why do most people treat it like a last resort?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:24:06 2015 No.7077159 >>7077143 Well the military still offers jobs to women right? So you could equally say women are also driven into the military due to financial desperation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:24:06 2015 No.7077160 >>7077153 poor imaginations

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:27:00 2015 No.7077164

>>7077159
>So you could equally say women are also driven into the military due to financial desperation.
Except they aren't going there in the same numbers. Probably because men are expected to be the breadwinner, and women are given greater leeway on working.

If a man expects to be in a relationship, he'd better have income.
For women, a relationship is often an alternative to working full time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:27:22 2015 No.7077165 >>7077149 Because feminism is about raising females to become the equals to males in our society. Turns out this society forces women AND men into certain gender roles, which feminism works to break down.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:28:06 2015 No.7077166 >>7077160 >poor imaginations Or maybe they don't want a multi-year commitment to getting shot at for near minimum wage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:28:41 2015 No.7077168 >>7076422 This.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:29:08 2015 No.7077169 >>7077165 >Turns out this society forces women AND men into certain gender roles, which feminism works to break down. Name a negative gender-role for men that feminism is working against?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:30:14 2015 No.7077170

>>7077153
because its a commitment you can't walk away from with fucking up your life, and most people think its all rooty tooty point and shooty.

the bulk of the modern military is just a labor scam to get around having to deal with unions or pay a prevailing wage.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:30:30 2015 No.7077172

>>7077138
>Humans are diverse in general, men more so than women.
So you just have a lot more dimensions. It doesn't really make any difference and I have no idea what you are getting at. You make no point.

>Good luck developing a philosophical observation about each of the 7 billion individuals that make up the human race.
Obviously I was not trying to do that. I was specifically saying that you can't do that. Again, you make no point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:32:19 2015 No.7077174 >>7076476 Pretty much m8

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:33:17 2015 No.7077176 >>7077169 being assertive in relationships. That puts alot of pressure on guys to always lead the relationship and not let the gf influence his opinions/actions/ initiate anything

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:35:25 2015 No.7077179

>>7077164
Have any statistics or evidence for that? And yeah like I said >>7077139 , gender roles are definitely skewed in our society, and ideally there would be no expectation of either member of a relationship to be a breadwinner, either way being normal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:36:30 2015 No.7077181 >>7077172 >You make no point. I'm not the one with the "manufacturing process" analogy. I'm just trying to say it's flawed and doesn't relate well to humans.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:41:44 2015 No.7077189

>>7077176
>being assertive in relationships.
Sorry, but I just don't see it.
I don't see feminists pushing for change here beyond women being given the freedom to initiate contact without being stigmatized while still being free to let the guy take all the social risk.
Any benefit to men is coincidental and sporadic.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:43:00 2015 No.7077191

>>7077181
Of course it does. I'm not saying that you can measure the overall quality of human in one variable, I'm saying that you can measure different (random) aspects of humans, IQ (which is not intelligence, IQ is what a IQ test measures, just to avoid that discussion), height, heart volume, bone density and so forth. As it turns out these quantities happen to be normally distributed, usually. So you can compare the two. Again, I'm not suggesting that that's all there is to it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:43:44 2015 No.7077193 >>7077169 One of the big ones I think is breaking down the stoic man gender role, attempting to make it socially acceptable for men to show emotions in public.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:45:28 2015 No.7077194

>>7077179
>Have any statistics or evidence for that?
Are you shitting me?
Go talk to any real person.
As far as number go, just look at the gender pay gap.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most (and perhaps all) of the gender wage gap is caused by voluntary choices women and men make.
Clearly, men are under far greater pressure.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:48:58 2015 No.7077198

>>7077191
>As it turns out these quantities happen to be normally distributed, usually. So you can compare the two
Except that (as I've already pointed out) various qualities of a manufactured product aren't normally distributed across a broad range, giving rise to competitive differences making the group more adaptable to changing environmental conditions.
Instead, they're all fine as long as they're nearly identical, withing a certain tolerance.
Why am I repeating myself? Did you even read my previous post?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:51:27 2015 No.7077203

>>7077193
>attempting to make it socially acceptable for men to show emotions in public.
First off. no. As far as I can tell, this isn't a goal of feminism.
Oh, I'm sure you'd like to promote the fallacy that men are as ruled by their emotions as women are, but the truth is that men are naturally more stoic (on average) than women.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 21:59:32 2015 No.7077215

>>7077203
> "Feminist advocacy is mainly focused on women's rights, but author bell hooks, among others, argue for the necessity for it to include men's liberation, because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles"
From the wikipedia article on feminism, citing Bell Hooks as proof that at least some feminists argue for breaking down male gender roles, which include stoicism.

I'd also love to see you prove that men are naturally more stoic, and that society hasn't conditioned men to act that way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:01:04 2015 No.7077218 >>7077215 >at least some feminists argue for breaking down male gender roles, which include stoicism. Again, denying the stoic nature of men might help women seem less emotional by comparison, but it's not actually helping men.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:02:59 2015 No.7077221 >>7077218 It's allowing men to act as they please, free from the roles society has cast them into. Don't you think it's helping men to enable them to display emotion without fear of reprisal or consternation?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:07:24 2015 No.7077231

>>7077221
>Don't you think it's helping men to enable them to display emotion without fear of reprisal or consternation?
this isn't a good thing, there is a reason men don't display emotion as much as women. emotions are becoming less and less useful because our feelings betray us in today's world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:10:47 2015 No.7077237 File: 13 KB, 333x500, 9781416953814-l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This thread needs moar Dick Masterson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xoKiH8JJM Guy's a legend!

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:11:55 2015 No.7077239 >>7077198 What are you even trying to argue? Good god.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:12:08 2015 No.7077241 >>7077231 Well you see, while feelings may "betray" us in today's male dominated world, nothing is stopping us from changing this dangerous precedent. Another goal of feminism is reworking the workplace.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:13:00 2015 No.7077245

>>7077221
>Don't you think it's helping men to enable them to display emotion without fear of reprisal or consternation?
I think the goal is to reduce the stigma women face for being more emotional than men.

Still waiting to hear one instance of how feminism is trying to help everybody, not just women.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Ending Apartheid was a noble cause, but let's not pretend it was an effort to help everybody, including whites.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:13:57 2015 No.7077247 >>7077231 Cynics are the worst kind of people.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:15:19 2015 No.7077250

>>7077241
I'm starting to think this is bait.

Sorry but men have already figured out that feelings aren't very useful. This is why we remove them as much as possible. I'm not going to trust my feelings in important matters when other methods have been shown to be much more effective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:15:50 2015 No.7077253 >>7077239 >What are you even trying to argue? Good god. You clearly aren't reading my posts. Go back, read them.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:18:58 2015 No.7077261

>>7077245
Like I said, breaking down gender roles lifts stigma from both men and women who attempt to act outside of societal norms. This includes emotional men, breadwinning women, women who don't shave their hair, or men that shave all of theirs off.

I think there definitely is an argument to be made that ending apartheid enriches the whole country, as the country reached a more equal state for everyone involved. Don't you think whites will benefit from having more equally educated and protected black brothers?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:21:13 2015 No.7077269 >>7077247 How is that a cynical statement at all?

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:25:11 2015 No.7077271

>>7077250
> men already figured out that feelings aren't useful. This is why we remove them as much as possible.

Spoken like a true /Sci/entist. I hate to brake it to you, but not everything in the world needs to have a use. Feelings are an essential part of being human, and to deny their import is to move away from what makes you human.

I'm still not convinced men "figured it out" so much so as it was demanded through gradual build-up of societal expectations.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:25:55 2015 No.7077274

>>7077261
>Don't you think whites will benefit from having more equally educated and protected black brothers?
If you pee in the ocean will it rise?

The _intent_ of the anti-aparthied movement was 99.9??% to help blacks, and the intent of feminism is 99.9??% to help women.

Your "stoic men" argument is a perfect example of this.
Men ARE stoic by comparison to women.
Encouraging them to show emotion is a thinly veiled effort to make men seem as emotionally driven as women, when they aren't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:27:14 2015 No.7077278 >>7077269 >How is that a cynical statement at all? It denies the feminist myth that women are no more emotional wrecks than men.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:34:09 2015 No.7077298

>>7077274
Let's take this back to America then. Do you really think that whites gained nothing from ending slavery? Do you think black people have not made any contributions that enriched the country for both whites and blacks? The abolitionist movement was obviously trying to end slavery for blacks, but at the same time it understood that this would be a boon to whites as well.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:40:32 2015 No.7077311

>>7077298
>The abolitionist movement was obviously trying to end slavery for blacks, but at the same time it understood that this would be a boon to whites as well.
Still seems like peeing in the ocean.
I'm confident the actual benefit to whites was greater than the perceived benefit.
Still waiting to hear about any intent to help men coming from the feminist movement though.
Please give me something that doesn't involve making men seem more feminine so as to make women more the "norm".

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:43:54 2015 No.7077322

>>7077271
>Spoken like a true /Sci/entist.
okay this is definitely bait, 7/10 on this one.

>I hate to brake it to you, but not everything in the world needs to have a use.
>brake
everything has some kind of use, but just not the one we want right now for our specific goals.

>Feelings are an essential part of being human, and to deny their import is to move away from what makes you human.
depending on how you define human, this can definitely be true. however humans tend to improve themselves and if improving humanity means removing our feelings then it will probably happen. You seem to forget that evolution still applies to us and humans should eventually split into new species much like how humans were created by splitting off as a new species as well.

>I'm still not convinced men "figured it out" so much so as it was demanded through gradual build-up of societal expectations.
and remind me again who created those societal expectations?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:49:51 2015 No.7077338 >>7077250 Shit that edge is too much to take

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 22:57:33 2015 No.7077345

>>7077311
The benefit to whites perceived by whom? Whether or not you think it's significant, it was still a motivating factor for white abolitionists I'd argue.

>give me something that doesn't involve making men seem more feminine
right here is what feminism is seeking to amend, what society defines as normal masculinity and femininity. Like I said and have been saying, expanding what is normal for these two concepts benefits society as a whole, since people of both genders are able to become the people they desire without fear of stigma from society.

Another way feminism helps men is by examining and breaking down depiction of men in media and advertisements, breaking down the idea that men have to be jacked fabios always eager for sex.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:03:43 2015 No.7077361 >>7077052 At least it's an issue over there. Here in the USA I haven't heard any politician mention it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:04:45 2015 No.7077367 I guess that it's related to social pressure, years you have to invest in education and the years you have available to be able to have off springs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:05:02 2015 No.7077369 >>7076585 All true except more women get depression than men

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:05:28 2015 No.7077370

>>7077345
>The benefit to whites perceived by whom?
By the abolitionists, of course.
> it was still a motivating factor for white abolitionists I'd argue
My point is that it wasn't a motivation for the anti-apartheid crowd. You shifted us over to 19th century America, but I suppose it's still true.
Abolitionists wanted all people to live in a world where blacks weren't enslaved, but their motivation was still focused on helping blacks.

>>7077345
>Another way feminism helps men is by examining and breaking down depiction of men in media and advertisements, breaking down the idea that men have to be jacked fabios always eager for sex.
But men ARE always eager for sex. It's how we're built.
Compare humans to other animals.
Women aren't like deer, dogs, etc. they don't go into heat, or give any outward sign of beigng fertile. Plus they ovulate far more frequently than comparable animals. Men, therefore, unlike most male mammals are constantly in rut, wanting sex every day if possible.
We're born with a biological imperative that we keep in our pants.
It starts at puberty and lasts a lifetime.

You'd like to pretend men are more like women, you're still giving me examples of feminists wishing men acted more feminine so women will be seen as more the norm.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:07:53 2015 No.7077377

>>7077370
>But men ARE always eager for sex. It's how we're built.
>Compare humans to other animals.
>Women aren't like deer, dogs, etc. they don't go into heat, or give any outward sign of beigng fertile. Plus they ovulate far more frequently than comparable animals. Men, therefore, unlike most male mammals are constantly in rut, wanting sex every day if possible.
>We're born with a biological imperative that we keep in our pants.
>It starts at puberty and lasts a lifetime.
This whole post is so full of baseless assumptions, that it's useless to point every single one of them out.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:10:10 2015 No.7077384

>>7077377
>This whole post is so full of baseless assumptions, that it's useless to point every single one of them out.
They aren't assumptions, it's mostly stuff from the Discovery channel.
And my personal life experiences as a man.
We really DO want to have sex every day.
That's not just a stereotype.

Still waiting to hear about how feminists want to help men besides making them seem more feminine.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:11:57 2015 No.7077388

>>7077377
Not really. His assertion is that men are always eager for sex and backed it up with the fact that humans are one of the few animals that are always horny. Whether or not you agree with the reasoning is one thing, but it's not baseless assumptions.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:12:03 2015 No.7077389

>>7077322
I'm just hoping you realize how autistic you sounded in the quote. You make the claim that improving humanity equates to removing our emotions, but you've yet to convince me that that is an improvement over actually listening to your feelings.

>remind me again who created those societal expectations?
Centuries worth of men reacting to these societal changes in order to excel in the changing environment, perpetuating and reinforcing how men should be, much like a frat perpetuating a hazing ritual for acceptance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:12:11 2015 No.7077390 >>7077384 They want to bring you down to their level basically which brings them up in a relative way. Nobody is really going to fall for this, men aren't going to give up their advantages they have over women and feminine men.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:18:19 2015 No.7077403

>>7077370
I'm not that well versed on the anti-apartheid movement, which is why I switched it back to abolitionists I had a more solid understanding on. You could easily say their motivation was focused on making sure no one was enslaved, it's a matter of semantics on how you define their motivations. Even if you say that the prime motivation was to help blacks, why would white abolitionists go to such great lengths to end slavery if they didn't think the country as a whole would benefit from it?

I'm not going to argue male biology with you, but you ignored the other portion of the societal constructs of what an attractive male looks like. Just as only a tiny percentage of women can attain a size 0 waist, equally few men are as jacked as most of the models in advertisements.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:18:52 2015 No.7077405

>>7077389
>I'm just hoping you realize how autistic you sounded in the quote
where do you think you are? this is fucking 4chan on /sci/, we are practically the purest form of autism around.

>You make the claim that improving humanity equates to removing our emotions, but you've yet to convince me that that is an improvement over actually listening to your feelings.
Go ahead and listen to your feelings and we will see how far that gets you, math and science are a cold bitch.

>Centuries worth of men reacting to these societal changes in order to excel in the changing environment, perpetuating and reinforcing how men should be, much like a frat perpetuating a hazing ritual for acceptance.
which was my point, men created these expectations because they figured out the best way to survive and protect their wives/children.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:32:57 2015 No.7077429 >>7077405 Well believe it or not but the world isn't all about science and math. There can exist meaning and import outside of those narrow constraints.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:43:41 2015 No.7077443

>>7077403
>Just as only a tiny percentage of women can attain a size 0 waist, equally few men are as jacked as most of the models in advertisements.
Yeah, but feminism doesn't seem concerned with this beyond labeling attractive men in media as manipulating women and supporting a "male power fantasy".

>tiny percentage of women can attain a size 0 waist,
I don't know the technical details of "size zero", but all people can loose excess weight.
My wife has zero thyroid function, but isn't overweight. Her youngest daughter was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis at 19, and can't exercise without constant pain. She's not overweight either.
Ten years ago I lost 70 pounds one summer.

Instead of telling women "it's hopeless", feminists _should_ be telling women that they have the power to control their own body, and that by exercising that control they can become far more empowered, confident, healthy, and successful with other people.

Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:46:35 2015 No.7077451

>>7077429
>Well believe it or not but the world isn't all about science and math.
sure, but you can't deny that they are incredibly powerful and their end game is to describe everything that is the world.

>There can exist meaning and import outside of those narrow constraints.
everything has a meaning, it just may not be what you expect.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 18 23:47:06 2015 No.7077452 >7076877 The fuck are you doing? Canada's math, chemistry and physics grade 11-12 courses are actually fairly comprehensive compared to their American counterparts (at least in Alberta) and you pick bio? Da fuq?

Anonymous Thu Feb 19 00:02:14 2015 No.7077471

>>7077443
Feminists and feminism don't hold direct sway over advertising agencies and can therefore only point out problematic depictions of genders. Feminism doesn't label attractive men as manipulating women so much as it labels men in advertisements as unrealistic caricatures of masculinity.

While most people can in fact lose weight, displaying advertisements with women who weigh 90 pounds to get that 22 inch size 0 waist establishes a dangerous and unrealistic standard of beauty for women.

Anonymous Thu Feb 19 00:07:26 2015 No.7077480

>>7077471
>Feminists and feminism don't hold direct sway over advertising agencies
muh strawman

>>7077471
>Feminism doesn't label attractive men as manipulating women so much as it labels men in advertisements as unrealistic caricatures of masculinity.

Muh true scottsman

>displaying advertisements with women who weigh 90 pounds to get that 22 inch size 0 waist establishes a dangerous and unrealistic standard of beauty for women.
muh cherrypicking

Anonymous Thu Feb 19 00:15:45 2015 No.7077493
File: 1.08 MB, 1335x658, mlemodels.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7077480
>muh strawman
May have misinterpretted your post as saying feminists are only concerned with the depictions instead of actually taking action.

I doubt any true scotsman would look like the male models from the pic.

Another point of note is how images in these magazines (fashion or otherwise) are often dramatically retouched, further shrinking the waist or erasing any hint of imperfections, which is clearly an unattainable goal for most women.

Do you really think most models are of a healthy weight?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 19 00:31:09 2015 No.7077510 >>7077493 >which is clearly an unattainable goal for most women. I guess the idea that men strive for an ideal and women reject it and call themselves ideal rings true here. It sounds more like you don't want to put the work in to bettering yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 19 01:02:50 2015 No.7077551 >>7077510 >implying women don't strive for size 0 waists Haven't heard of all the crazy diets and eating disorder women develope to attempt to reach these bodies?

Anonymous Thu Feb 19 01:38:39 2015 No.7077592

>>7077551
>Haven't heard of all the crazy diets and eating disorder women develope to attempt to reach these bodies?
>doing retarded shit and failing
>not doing tried and true methods which actually require effort like counting calories and exercising.
women are just dumb it seems like.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 19 06:48:11 2015 No.7077858 >>7077592 >>not doing tried and true methods which actually require effort like counting calories and exercising. >women are just dumb it seems like. Not "just dumb", they seem lazy and "entitled" too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 19 08:32:02 2015 No.7077933 >>7075719 is this really your gf op ? could we have some moar ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 19 10:48:10 2015 No.7078036 >>7077271 >Feelings are an essential part of being human this type of shit is the best place to put this meme arrow >why? cuz u say so?

Anonymous Thu Feb 19 11:26:41 2015 No.7078073

>>7076783
>Why
Are you really ask why diversity in science should be encouraged?

People with different perspectives, backgrounds, etc. will approach problems differently. Maintaining the status quo is bad for science.

It's the same reason why high biodiversity is better than a monoculture.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math