Slashdot Mirror
Women Skip Math/Science Careers To Have Families
hessian notes a Cornell survey, published in the Psychological Bulletin, of 35 years of sociological studies that concludes that women tend to choose non-math-intensive fields for their careers not because they lack mathematical ability, but because they want flexibility to raise children or prefer less math-intensive fields of science. "'A major reason explaining why women are underrepresented not only in math-intensive fields but also in senior leadership positions in most fields is that many women choose to have children, and the timing of child rearing coincides with the most demanding periods of their career, such as trying to get tenure or working exorbitant hours to get promoted,' said lead author Stephen J. Ceci... The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors in explaining why women were underrepresented in science careers, and that studies on social and cultural effects were inconsistent and inconclusive. They also reported that although 'institutional barriers and discrimination exist, these influences still cannot explain why women are not entering or staying in STEM careers,' said Ceci."
... for on average a lot less pay, I think that's the biggest problem. Why pay a north american a decent middle class wage when you can farm science, technology and engineering careers to lower wage countries?
News film at 11.
Well, at least it's becoming okay again to point out what is incredibly obvious to everyone, except feminists with an axe to grind.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Well, gee, that's good news . . . I thought women avoided such careers because of all the geeky males that tend to gravitate towards math/science careers.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Y'all never read the darn articles.
What they've found is that the difference in representation isn't justified by biological differences OR barriers and that the child rearing social role plays a big factor.
Yeah, that's the problem, too many over-religious Christians in the scientific fields! You just can't keep Christians away from science!
Speaking as a woman who has a successful career in a male dominated environment (not STEM but the military), I can say that it is possible for a woman to rise to the top, if she is willing to make one of two choices (or falls into one of two choices):
1. She has no children
2. If she has children she has a husband who has a work schedule which allows him to be the one 'on call' for the children
I've seen many, many female Colonels who were successful with selection two. I've only seen female Generals with selection 1.
OT: From the perspective of lifetime income for the family--military service is bad for males (it reduces their post-service income by 30% when compared to civilian men the same age when they return to civilian life), but good for females. Post military service a woman will outperform women her own age in the civilian market.
This then is the simple way to maximize your family income over a lifetime. Woman goes in the service, husband stays in the civilian economy in employment that allows flexibility (lawyer, real estate, contracting, consulting, etc) until the children are able to drive, then both enter the economy as full time employees.
From the "I thought feminism meant female equality with males" file and the interesting part was the bottom 'recommendation':
"The authors recommended that universities and companies create options for women with math talents who want to pursue math-intensive careers. These could include deferred start-up of tenure-track positions and part-time work that segues to full-time tenure-track work for women who are raising children, and courtesy appointments for women unable to work full time but who would benefit from use of university resources (e-mail, library resources, grant support) to continue their research from home."
Ah, so when feminists talk about 'equality' what they really mean is, "we want special treatment so that we get equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity based on the same starting point". Silly me, and to think that I thought feminism was all about equality with males in regards to the same starting point and a meritocratic system where skills and knowledge are the basis of advancement forward rather than the old boys network.
People wonder why I given feminists as much credibility has hearing Saudi Arabia preach about human rights, tolerance and respect.
Yeah, that's the problem, too many over-religious Christians in the scientific fields! You just can't keep Christians away from science!
Read it and weep.
This guy's the limit!
Can you really blame them? Women have a fairly short window of only a few decades to have a family. Men have no such limit and can theoretically have children from puberty until death, so there's not as much pressure for us. Besides, people tend to think too much about their careers, IMO. A good job isn't everything. I would rather spend more time with my family than work hard to rise to the top. (in the end, what do you really have with that option? Is your life really going to be better?)
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Where this trend really starts getting scary is in the field of medicine. While medical schools are trying desperately to accept increasing numbers of women (often more than 50% to compensate for those that don't continue on to practice) many of the women that do finish choose to raise a family during their time of residency (or soon after). This leaves women with less actual medical experience, and generally lowers the overall quality of care.
Re:Men and Woman are different..... News film at 11. Well, at least it's becoming okay again to point out what is incredibly obvious to everyone, except feminists with an axe to grind.
I don't really see how that follows. The article and summary say:
The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors in explaining why women were underrepresented in science careers,
But women have to stay home with kids, right? Well, this gets us to a more balanced conclusion: increase paternity leave and/or make it compulsory, and the effects of one sex happening to be the one manufacturing kids will be greatly mitigated. In other words, the mostly arbitary decision that women have to stay home with the kids is the greatest problem (women don't have to be at home 24/7 to provide breast milk, either.) If both parents take the hit, the system will have to choose between adapting and just throwing away talent.
For an example of how much a society can do for both parents, check Sweden's stats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave#Europe . Spoiler: 480 days paid paternity leave. (disclaimer: I'm not Swedish)
That's not true. People just don't want to admit that humans are still animals with the logical urge to keep on creating humans and in order to create humans properly at least one human has to stay home and take care of it.
Due to nature giving the woman all the birth and child caring bits naturally for centuries the woman stayed home. It's something built into humans and to think you can change centuries of instinct with a few bra burnings is silly.
Women who rather be career driven just have a chip on their shoulder because most women still rather do things the old way. It's time they realise this and quit thinking that women will dominate these areas and make the labs pink.
But creationists say the purpose of their visits to what some describe as "temples to evolution" is to train themselves to think critically, not to pick rhetorical fights with curators or other visitors.
Oh God! Mental note: Don't hire anyone from Liberty University, VA.
-military service is bad for males (it reduces their post-service income by 30% when compared to civilian men the same age when they return to civilian life)
Two questions spring to mind: first, how does this differ for officers and enlisted men, and secondly, isn't this skewed a bit by the fact that people with lower incomes are more likely to go into the military?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Who's forcing them to have a family? it is a lifestyle choice - like buying a washing machine or allocating 14 weeks off each year to immerse oneself into Super 14 Rugby.
Have they also thought that maybe females are actually making the choice to have families over having a career? why is it every time there is a feminist jackass who comes out of the wood works that there is this claim that some how if females aren't career oriented and pumping out kids (they choose one or the other instead of doing both) - apparently it is the man's fault?
Good lord, let people do their own thing and stop trying to think that you need to socially engineer a given field in one direction or another? what next - insufficient gay's and lesbian's in quantum physics?*
* Disclaimer, I am gay myself, I need to put this disclaimer because some jackass will go, "ooh, he's homophobic, I'll mark down his post" *Teeheehee*
Women have different interests for their own reasons. Oddly, "researchers" haven't chosen to simple ASK women about their choices. The very notion that there is discrimination holding women back is nonsense and has been nonsense for a very long time. We've spend decades walking on eggshells trying to man women in the workplace more comfortable as a form of "affirmative action" to what end? A whole lot of hassle and needless tax benefits for "woman/minority owned businesses" and stuff like that? While we are compensating for the choices that people make, let's offer benefits to those who choose a particular religion to follow and whichever is the minority in a region, let's give them special privileges and tax exemptions. Also, let's put all "angry black men" who dress exclusively in "thug wear" into a special social category as well.
I am sure I am offending lots of people and a flamebait is the destiny for this comment, but when it comes to choices that people make, it's time we stop compensating for these people. Religion is a choice. Family or career paths are a choice. How people adapt themselves into society is a choice. Let's stop protecting people from and compensating people for the consequences of their choices. No more tax breaks for churches and religious institutions. No more affirmative actions for women and black people. Let's give TRUE equality a chance and take these societal crutches away. There may have been a need for them in the past, but that need has very likely expired.
It's also pertinent to ask the questions of how does this include retirement income, is it just people that retire from the military, and can it be attributed to the desire to spend time with their family since they've already completed one career and are more interested in spending time with the families they may have missed until this point. I know several retired officers and enlisted persons who sought careers that would allow them flexibility and/or face time with their families, such as teaching, with little consideration for pay.
There are many extenuating circumstances to these statistics. Can the females improved performance be attributed to more the mentality and personality required by a military career more than the actual fact she was in the military?
I suspect that military service is more an indicator of future performance than a causal factor.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
In my own research, I was able to find many examples of women having babies when it was definitely not good for the man, for the society, or even for the woman.
When exactly is this true ? America has on average 2.1 children/woman, this is just barely enough (ie. more would be preferable).
In europe birthrates are so low that they are on track to eradicate European presence in Europe before 2150 (and make Europeans a minority in Europe by 2050).
Are you contending such a thing would be good for either Europe or Europeans ? We need more babies, not less. Much, much more. Most places in Europe would be well served by a doubling or tripling of the number of native babies.
It's not just women... whichever parent 'takes the hit' to raise the kids runs into this. It's the "kid track" (formerly 'mommy track'). Kids into schoolbus means I'm off to work, rush back before they get home, so less face time and less 'being seen'. It's never about the work.
I've been advised (wisely) to never mention the kids... the other scientists with kids, it's like a secret club where you only talk to other parents least word get out you're soft. In fact, I've been asked by a boss when will my kids be old enough that I can 'get serious about my career' (meaning put them into aftercare so I can work 60+ hours). I have no regrets-- we make a choice, you can't have it all, etc. But it is real-- if you're kid-track, you're not career-track.
Given the salaries in academia/science (medium-low) and that more women (statistically) achieving in the business workplace, more science guys (I predict) will be 'going domestic', so more guys will run into this too.
And while I'm at it, what's with the lame acronomy for Stay At Home Dads, it makes us all sound sahd. Besides, if you work 3/4 time or a rushed 8 hours, you're not staying, you're just at home when K12 is not in session.
Signed,
an At-Home Dad (AHD, similarily to ADHD probably intentional)
A.
What has science to do with economics? Countries like Russia, China, and India have had remarkable scientific achievements, but have been mired down by their inefficient socialist economies. What they truly need to become successful is training in clerical business jobs, they need to learn how to keep accounting books and inventories. Rocket science they already know.
I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that having ovaries and wombs has a lot to do with this.
"Why do women have babies?"
A good question... my own opinion on the matter is because that's what women are designed to do - procreate, we can backwards rationalize it all we want, but the primary purpose of life is survive and procreate. I think the process is mostly unconscious and instinctive, I've been doing a lot of reading in the cognitive sciences and how they see that most thought is unconscious, most thought is below your awareness... about 98%. So it would not be a surprise that people then backwards rationalize their actions (i.e. I wanted kids for x,y, z). Truth be told people have kids for companionship/economic reasons and (the hope) of old age security I think, that has always been the 'traditional' view imho.
I've thought about this more as I've had to take care of my own grandmother who's very old, she wouldn't have anyone to take care of her if she didn't have her kids and grandkids. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a woman with no kids who is not financially secure and is getting old... we have to remember that for most of history poverty was a significant fact of life.
People have kids just because 'thats what everyone else is doing'. When I asked my own mother why she had kids, she said 'thats just what people did back then'. Personally I think most people don't really think about it, they do it out of habit or instinct.
First why on Earth do you think we need to increase the world's population? It won't be long now before we hit 7 billion people on this rock.
Second, you are a racist. To begin with I'd want to see citation to your statistics about Europe. Further, assuming your numbers are correct, I fail to see the problem unless you believe there is something wrong with non Europeans.
Countries like Russia, China, and India have had remarkable scientific achievements, but have been mired down by their inefficient socialist economies.
You misspelled "rampant institutionalized corruption at all levels of government".
You can't take the sky from me...
I think all these discussions skip over the fundamental fact that women are the only ones biologically capable of bringing a child into the world and the 9 month investment that requires rather than the 9 minute (assuming 8 minutes of foreplay) investment from a man.
Yes there will be women quite entitled to skip the whole process entirely. There will be others who will happily give birth and immediately go back to work leaving someone else at home to look after the child be it a stay at home dad or paid nanny. Many many more will enjoy motherhood and accept the hard work raising a child can be.
Evolution has made it so that women are naturally more bonded to their children and want to look after them and for good reason so the species can propagate.
Why do women have babies?
I know this is Slashdot and all, so we shouldn't assume you are familiar with the process, but maybe it's time you sat down and had a talk with mom and dad about where babies come from.
What?
Truth be told people have kids for companionship/economic reasons and (the hope) of old age security I think, that has always been the 'traditional' view imho.
I'm guessing you don't have kids? Truth is, despite all the complaining about diapers and sleepless nights and moody teenagers, its overall on average fun, both the initial procreation for a couple minutes (obviously) and the next couple decades of playing and reminiscing about your own youth, etc. Most adults are really just big kids inside and find the kids are an excellent excuse for their own goals of running around in the park and building legos and building tree houses and digging in sandboxes and riding bikes and playing aports and computer and video games. Yeah the wii is for the kids. Sure I'm only pretending to enjoy an afternoon at the waterpark or chuck e cheese, it's all about the kids. Whatever.
Add to it a society where its widely believed that only a creepy pedo molester kidnapper gang member homeless terrorist adult could possibly want to go to a playground UNLESS THEY HAVE KIDS WITH THEM, that turns the kids into a fashion accessory for the parents to have fun.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The above opinion was deemed sexist enough for the person holding it to resign as Harvard's President in 2005.
But this one:
is just fine?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As a Merkin, I dread the day when the immigrants realise they don't need to speak English any more. Even more, I fear my Redneck fellows who'll probably start some whitepanther subversion and bring down the People's wrath on my ethnic minority.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I believe you may be a racist for wanting less white people in Europe. See how it goes both ways?
I read an article a few week ago that the reason women aren't doing math/science is because *they don't like it*. i.e. The jobs in those fields suck.
After 10 years as an engineer, I concur.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The problem might be that we have developed a work-life that is inherently incompatible with a decent home life. Maybe women just make a rational choice on different priorities. Not far from the article's suggestion but I'd go further and recommend changing the workplace for everyone.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Which is a consequence of an economic system where the profit motive has been officially eliminated. Steal $1000 and you got that much for yourself, the whole country lost $1000 and your own share of that loss is $1000 divided by the country population.
The same works for capitalist systems too, of course. In a big corporation where no one has a majority share, decisions are often made by directors who have a bigger interest in getting a fat bonus than in improving the company's situation.
The solution, IMHO, would be a system where the controllers are directly affected by the results, a system where the directors are the owners. In current capitalist countries, companies are often owned by other companies or pension funds. The ultimate decisions are made too far removed from the people who actually own the capital involved.
"Two questions spring to mind: first, how does this differ for officers and enlisted men, and secondly, isn't this skewed a bit by the fact that people with lower incomes are more likely to go into the military?"
I'm a 26-year enlisted retiree and I not only help skew the figures, I've met plenty of other happy retirees who do!
My income at retirement was cut roughly in half to 30K gross/year. This was not tragic because I had many years to plan for it. I don't need to get another job that brings my income back to the same rate, because my mortgage is paid off and all my tools and toys paid for.
I didn't go to work for a year, then took a part-time job at my local community college where I'd previously volunteered to help the welding program. When my (VEAP-victim) year group comes eligible for the Webb G.I.Bill, I'll go back to school for the fun of it. Many G.I.s do this, then move back into the workforce later if they wish.
I'm not rich, but I live in an affordable rural area. (Most bases are in rural areas, facilitating buying a home cheaply before retirement.)
If I'd been a civilian, I'd have to stay in the workforce to survive, but my overall income would be larger.
Uncle Sam needs a young force, so we get put out to pasture earlier than a civilian might. While there are many _individual_ stories to the contrary, most people in their forties or later can't be in shape for sustained military activity because of bad backs, knees, shoulders, and general wear and tear.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Uhm. What does that even mean? I hate to nitpick. I've been doing a lot of reading in the cognitive sciences, too. A lot of those numbers ("people only use 10% of their brains", "Einstein only used 10% of his brain") are totally bogus. Where does that number come from?
Race is coincidental. The fact of the matter is that the more educated you are the less likely you are to have children. This matters, because the more educated the parents, the less the child costs to raise to the society as a whole. For the general welfare of our society, we'd be better off if different people were having children.
Weren't they already less successful, when white colonists arrived on their ships with guns?
Coding etudes
No! You're doing it all wrong. You're supposed to feel guilty about the fact that some groups of people have achieved more than some other groups of people!
It's not a population drop. It's a population displacement by immigrants from Asia and Africa.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Why do women have babies?
Because hormones triumph over brains. Some of the smartest women I have known have become completely irrational when it comes to dropping sprog. From my own molecular biology background, I have a highly technical term for this: "stupidity hormones".
Note: I'm not being totally sexist here; after all, I am prepared to admit that an erect penis has little conscience...
so i say it to you: why not give women, who bear children, special consideration for that?
Nobody is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to bear children (at least not in the developed world).
In this day and age, in modern culture, having children is purely a choice women make or don't make, knowing full well the career, financial, and lifestyle consequences. These consequences are real, and trying to "make biology fair"--meaning give childbearing women special privileges over non-childbearing women--is not fair to the people (men and women) who chose not to have children.
Studies have shown that couples who DON'T have children are, on average, significantly happier.
Yeah, you're REALLY gonna need to cite that. I know of not a single person who, in the twilight years of their lives, have looked back and said, "Ya know, having kids was a complete waste of my time."
You may be happier for a few years, but if your last decades are spent wishing you had a family, are you really happier overall?
There are many reasons for not having children, but the strongest is that your parents didn't have any.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wrong. The cost to a professional couple to raise children is huge, because of its affect on their careers. It simply isn't possible to raise children yourself in a proper way and have jobs at the same time. And most middle-class people don't make enough money to hire nannies, due to the high labor costs in this society (plus, would you want certain low-class people raising your kids, and teaching them stupid things like fandom of monster trucks or whatever?).
Personally, I already have so little free time between a professional engineering job, a marriage, extracurricular activities, and side businesses (to hopefully get away from being a wage slave, which is not a stable long-term position), that I can't imagine putting any time into having children. There just isn't any available time for it.
The big problem is biology: we humans don't live long enough, and women in particular are screwed because they can't have children past their 30s. (Well, they can, but the risk of having a Downs Syndrome or otherwise defective child go up exponentially. It's hard enough raising a normal child; a special-needs child requires people with no real jobs.) If people could spend their first 50 or 75 years being single, getting married, building careers and saving money, and then have children after their retirement, then we wouldn't have these problems.
Or is it that having a family is usually ends up more time-consuming for a woman because women are expected to be the primary care-givers?
Ding ding! We have a winner!
Even though our society supposedly treats men and women the same, it really doesn't. Raising children still generally falls on the woman's shoulders, whether or not she has a man around to help out. If there is one, he usually sits on the couch watching sports while the woman cooks meals, changes diapers, etc. If she's really lucky, he'll actually hold a regular job and bring home a paycheck.
the drivers for men in the field are the same as the drivers for women
No way.
Men, especially from about age 15 to 25, are genetically programmed to do things that may impress women. It is this drive that produces Nobel prizes, dictators, fire eaters, and football players.
Look, we can even measure brain structure differences. Think that affects nothing?
To imply that the STEM inequality is a bad thing is to judge women by male standards. Life isn't all about getting published, famous, or powerful. Other things are valuable in life, especially if you are not male. There is nothing wrong with having different priorities in life. To judge women by male standards is to devalue female standards, and thus women.
Here is an article on the study by the BBC. Google finds a lot of similar articles.
Centralization breaks the internet.
My mom was a nurse before she retired. She generally hated it (which is why she didn't bother doing any part-time nursing work after she retired). While she liked working with patients, dealing with hospital management killed it for her. She got injured lifting a grossly obese patient and that was the beginning of the end of her career. Why did she lift a patient she had no business lifting? Because the nurse supervisor ordered it, because the hospital had no orderlies to lift and turn patients like that. (Orderlies are big men who just go around the hospital doing brute-force jobs like lifting people.) Why were there no orderlies? Because the hospital laid them off to save money.
There is a shameful disparity here. We must address this.
Also: elementary school teachers, nurses, home health care aides, rape councilers, nannies, maids, interior decorators, etc.
We could start early, with after-school and summer programs for boys only. We could offer special college scholarships for men. We could have college admissions quotas to ensure that classes won't be mostly women.
Really, why the hell not?
Actually, from what I've heard from people with experience outsourcing that it is indeed social factors that make offshoring not worth it. Your average Indian tech is just as smart as your average American tech, and a hell of a lot more motivated. The problem is, he tells his boss "It's nearly done, we just have a few bugs to iron out" and the boss passes on a message of "Yes, sir, it is all very exceedingly good and ready for production straight away!". He has to - if he doesn't he gets fired and one of the hundreds waiting in line takes his place.
In the same way, when outsourcing to China, problems aren't reported because doing so means you lose face, and/or are seen as less loyal to your company.
That said, I don't think that you can say China has a "lack of growth", up until last year they were lightyears ahead of anywhere else in terms of economic growth and they're still chugging forward while everyone else starts sliding backwards. They're rapidly making the transition from ripping off existing tech to being the innovators in their own right.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I'm one semester away from a BS in computer science, and I've worked in groups with a lot of people from India and China, mostly graduate students, over the last year or so. I'm not concerned for my future.
I don't mean any disrespect to any of them, in fact in most cases I like working with them and hanging out with them. Their work ethic is fantastic, but in some ways that's part of the problem. Both cultures put a very high emphasis on working hard, but it seems their educational systems place little value on creative problem solving. The Chinese (PRC) education system in particular seems designed to squash any bit of creativity that its students may have had.
I've become convinced that the reason America has been on top is our peculiar form of laziness. We're always looking for a better, smarter, and most of all easier way to do things, and that is precisely where innovation comes from. From what I've seen of Chinese and Indians, they're so concerned with working hard and doing things the "proper" way, that if they ever even notice the places where their processes could be improved, they would immediately discount the thought because that's not how they were told to do things.
A note about Japan: They've always excelled at integrating foreign ideas. Most of what we think of as Japanese traditional things were in fact imported from China and/or Korea many centuries ago.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I've become convinced that the reason America has been on top is our peculiar form of laziness. We're always looking for a better, smarter, and most of all easier way to do things, and that is precisely where innovation comes from.
In fact, here you're echoing a chap called Larry Wall, I think you may have heard of him. From the second edition of Programming Perl (sourced from his wiki page:
The Three Virtues of a Programmer:
1. Laziness - The quality that makes you go to great effort to reduce overall energy expenditure. It makes you write labor-saving programs that other people will find useful, and document what you wrote so you don't have to answer so many questions about it. Hence, the first great virtue of a programmer. Also hence, this book. See also impatience and hubris.
2. Impatience - The anger you feel when the computer is being lazy. This makes you write programs that don't just react to your needs, but actually anticipate them. Or at least pretend to. Hence, the second great virtue of a programmer. See also laziness and hubris.
3. Hubris - Excessive pride, the sort of thing Zeus zaps you for. Also the quality that makes you write (and maintain) programs that other people won't want to say bad things about. Hence, the third great virtue of a programmer. See also laziness and impatience.
These qualities, while beneficial to the tech industry, are somewhat at odds with the traditional mindset in some more diligent cultures. :)
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Further, assuming your numbers are correct, I fail to see the problem unless you believe there is something wrong with non Europeans.
Below, you call out a sibling poster for raising a straw man, and yet here you do exactly the same thing. Europe is home to an incredible diversity in culture, with many ancient and unique small towns/villages which will disappear without increased birth rates. Immigrant populations can't completely maintain the culture of the destination even if they want to, which by observation they very seldom do.
So when the GP post said
Most places in Europe would be well served by a doubling or tripling of the number of native babies.
and you countered with
Second, you are a racist.
I have no choice but to paraphrase your own response:
I fail to see the problem unless you believe there is something wrong with Europeans.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I doubt 131 (or more now) is a record. If you say something controversial, good conversation might ensue (or, of course, it can get you fired...). I didn't understand "troll" either.
Apparently one reason why sociology research is usually done so poorly is that many people can't consider the questions without becoming upset.
You might like this?
A denial of human nature, no less than an emphasis on it, can be warped to serve harmful ends. We should expose whatever ends are harmful and whatever ideas are false, and not confuse the two.
--Steven Pinker
Most people don't handle issues involving conflict well.
The devil take thee, self-righteous cad!
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."