Slashdot Mirror
Cornell Study: For STEM Tenure Track, Women Twice As Likely To Be Hired As Men
_Sharp'r_ writes In the first "empirical study of sexism in faculty hiring using actual faculty members", Cornell University researchers found that when using identical qualifications, but changing the sex of the applicant, "women candidates are favored 2 to 1 over men for tenure-track positions in the science, technology, engineering and math fields."
An anonymous reader links to the study itself.
I've been pushing my daughter in STEM and she's about to transition from HS to college.
If this keeps up, I can look forward to her not having to move home after college graduation!
You now have a basis to sue. Have at it.
So we'll see the opposite in nursing schools?
No? You must be full of shit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How is excluding someone from a job based solely on gender not sexism?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism
It's sexist if a woman has no interest in a pursuing a STEM career ?
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
You'll need to define those terms carefully before you have any hope of persuading us.
That is an assertion, unsupported by evidence or argument.
If a woman is being hired ahead of a more skilled man simply because she's a woman, then that's sexism.
Nope.. because penis. Welcome to affirmative action, the newspeak term for discrimination against those who are not in a protected caste.
Sex based discrimination is sex based discrimination, whatever the motives behind it are. yes, affirmative action is a corrective for sexism, but it isn't a counter for it, and isn't that what we really want? If one institution discriminates against women, and another applies affirmative action as a corrective measure, we may end up with cosily balanced statistics (men & women being equally likely to be hired), but we actually end up with 2 institutions who discriminate based on sex, and where actual ability plays second fiddle.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
So I take it you would be cool with the NBA advertising a "Whites only" player draft policy for a few years until things there are more in balance too?
No it's not. It's the very same systemic/cultural/legal/economic discrimination its proponents claim to fight. It's extremely hypocritical to a point where I have to assume that its proponents do understand and have ulterior motives.
as long as I have equal opportunity to get laid.
Hey, where's my paternal leave!
Google: LFL
Legends Football League, or as it was previously known: Lingerie Football League.
And no, it's not some prissy 2-hand touch event. These ladies are for real.
This signature is false.
I have not.
I HAVE heard of men being run out of the nursing profession by women who don't want them there.
There's also education, where men elementary school teachers are frequently forced out by institutional sexism, but again, no one particularly cares about the lack of men teaching first grade.
I'm going to find it really hard to take any of this sexism bullshit seriously until I see a strong push to get half of all garbage collectors be women. Right now from my point of view it's all bullshit done by people who see nerds as a "soft target."
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
That is like saying that it is impossible to be racist if you are black.
Looking at a typical dictionary definition of sexism - "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.", Affirmative Action (a.k.a. Positive Discrimination) is still as sexist/racist as any other kind of discrimination, because it is putting people into a position because of their gender/colour/membership of a minority.
For me, the tragedy of Affirmative Action is that many of the appointments of women or minorities made under that banner are of people whose skillset, abilities and experience justify the appointment in their own right. But because of Affirmative Action, those people are often dismissed or devalued in the eyes of their peers because "they only got that position because of Affirmative Action".
These ladies are for real.
Just like pro wrestling and roller derby.
The academic job market is so tight right now that there's not much danger of hiring unqualified people -- there are many more highly qualified job-seekers than there are jobs available.
I would flip the problem around and ask why proportionally more males seem to be sticklers for punishment and waste their talents going to work in a difficult field with little job security and low pay (relatively) when they could go do almost anything else and be much more successful?
I have a lot of friends who did engineering and are women, and they all left engineering because their skills were more valuable working elsewhere. Many now regret having done the degree in the first place since they never used any of the technical stuff they worked so hard to learn. Thing is they are not alone and more than half the guys in my class did the same. I hate to say this (as someone who does enjoy engineering) but those who are still doing it a decade later are a pretty odd bunch, mostly with very poor social skills. Since engineering is one of the few places you can succeed without having social skills, I wonder if it is more correlated with this than any kind of male discriminatory thing.
So the sad reality as far as I can tell, is that if you want more 'women in STEMS' you should encourage them to have rubbish social skills. Alternately you could improve the social skills of the few engineers that remain and then there would be no more engineers and the problem would be solved as well. Our economy doesn't care about making useful stuff anymore. It is just about getting some shiny crap from China, slapping some marketing and celebrity endorsements on it and laughing all the way to the bank.
Properly done, affirmative action simply means getting more of the unrepresented group to apply. The best candidate gets the job, it's just taking action to get more diverse candidates to apply for it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Before the comments explode into an orgy of heated and tedious argument (well ok, they already have), it's worth noting that the study didn't use statistics for actual hiring decisions. By the phrase "using actual faculty members," they just mean that they got a bunch of professors to participate in an experiment where they evaluate the suitability of various made-up candidates on paper. Meh. If they had real-world stats for this, I might actually be interested. How many men and how many women applied to different STEM faculty jobs in a given year, and who got hired? Simple - yet we don't have that information.
if society has systematically shaped her expectations and preferences from the day she was conceived? Yes.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Actually,~51% - there's a slight gender bias in birth rates (unexplained so far as I know). Which makes the fact that they are in fact minorities in most professional fields all the more damning.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Only an idiot would bother trying to persuade someone called DoofusOfDeath of anything. It's clearly a pointless endeavour.
I find your logic compelling. I am now fully persuaded of the OP's assertion. Well done, sir.
I guess a guy could just say he identifies as a woman and the problem is solved.
Unfortunately, that will open a whole new can of worms (or fish)..
Exactly like the study that showed 'white' names get more interviews. You can't discredit one without taking the other down.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
we've gone full circle.
From what I've seen, getting a tenured STEM position is like winning the lottery these days, regardless of who you are or how good you are. Maybe this is just the system balancing itself out? There just aren't enough positions to go around anyway. Also, STEM departments in most places are overwhelmingly male, but correlation != causation.
This was one of several things that kept me from going on to graduate studies in chemistry. Other than just being burnt out on school by the point I had to decide, the odds of landing a permanent job were low even when I graduated (90s.) It's funny too, because I would be one of those strange individuals who would work harder because of tenure...to me, it would represent freedom to concentrate on work and not worry about having a job. I know that most people aren't like that, so that's why they have to be incredibly picky and careful.
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor, and one of the most important steps is to eliminate the gender bias in positions of power - which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires. We could debate which is more damaging, but especially in the case of the educational institutions which shape the attitudes and expectations of the future leaders and professionals, I'd say there's a strong case to be made for correcting the bias as rapidly as possible.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I would say sexism is a prejudice, or belief that women (or men) should not be in—or will not be as good in—certain fields.
What would you call willful ignorance of the difference between the sexes? Do you think females, on average, can excel as much as males in a job that requires physical strength and endurance? Someone pointed out that there's no significant push to get females into garbage collection. Is it sexist to acknowledge the fact that males out-compete females in the lion's share of physical sports? How about the fact that females have a higher average than males on language testing? Or that males beat females on spatial acuity tests?
It would make more sense, IMHO, to acknowledge the obvious differences between the sexes and allow them to complement one another in society.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Properly" according to who?
In reality, affirmative action frequently means that people insist on what they believe to be statistically equal outcomes, and that requires active discrimination.
Did you just wake up from a thirty-year coma? Because none of that is true anymore. Women are encouraged to pursue STEM careers these days, and they are worshiped by their contemporaries for it -- as evidenced by your statement. The attitudes you're attributing to society largely died out over a generation ago, and the few areas where they still thrive are places you don't want to work, anyway.
The study did not look at real hiring decisions made by colleges but rather had STEM faculty members rank made up resumes. So to say that "Women Twice As Likely To Be Hired As Men" is not supported by the study.
Focused narrowly on applications I think that's a fair approach since we're merely ensuring opportunity. If the focus switches to the hiring phase then it's just another kind of discrimination.
More than you know: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Is it still sexism if it's correcting an existing sexist imbalance?
Yes. If gender is a consideration that influences the decision then it is by definition sexism. We can argue about whether it is justified or not (I think not) but it unquestionably IS sexism.
until then the choices are (A) preferentially hire women, or (B) hire an equal mix and wait until all the existing faculty retires (probably at least a generation or two) for the gender mix to equalize.
Incomplete set of choices. There are other options. The best option is to hire the most qualified individuals without regard to gender. Generally speaking unless there is a supply imbalance (which does happen sometimes) hiring the best people tends to take care of the diversity problems. Talent in STEM generally has little to do with gender or ethnicity or country of origin or age or even sexual orientation. Hire the best people and you'll get a diverse workforce in most cases rather naturally.
The problem is that people tend to hire who they are comfortable with rather than hire the best available candidates. This is how you end up with executive teams with nothing but old white men. Look at how much of a monoculture an organization is if you want to know whether they truly value identifying and promoting the best available people.
I should say that I'd be more strongly opposed to the practice if it were occurring in industry, but we're talking about a college
Makes no difference. College is just another type of industry. Hire the best people. Period.
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor, and one of the most important steps is to eliminate the gender bias in positions of power - which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
I really fucking hate social engineering. So until we reach this fantasy utopia of yours those of us that you are discriminating against just have to roll over? Because previous generations discriminated in the opposite direction? I'm to be disadvantaged because of my gender based on the actions of my parents and grandparents?
There's a reason why corruption of blood is proscribed in our political system. I fail to see why corruption of gender or race is justifiable. You're punishing me for the actions of third parties, many of whom died years before I was born, and you really think this is sound public policy?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
To be fair I think Asians are also under-represented in basketball.
Where I live, Florida, minorities and women can get small business loans and grants far easier than White males can. I'd suggest that all these "oppressed" people start their own businesses instead of forcing existing business owners to bend to their will. How many times do we have to pick someone up before we expect them to stand on their own? If women and minorities are given every opportunity plus extra help from the local and federal governments to succeed but still fail to do so... is it really the fault of Whites?
Some things need to be said...
LMOL yeah nice source...
It depends on where the hiring is done.
At some places they hire STEM graduates and interns but assign them "womens tasks" like reception and party planning, instead of let them get into the guts of wiring and cabling and rebuilding laptops and help desk. And pay them less.
At other places, they respect women and let them do the job they were hired for, the STEM work. And pay them the same.
So, Cornell might be in the latter group.
(this is feedback from women in STEM that I know, who talk about this stuff)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
It is also a form of institutionalized racism/sexism/ageism/etc. The intentions are good but it discriminates on a basis other than merit which ultimately is counterproductive. What is the point of saying you cannot discriminate on the basis of race and then discriminating on the basis of race? Makes no sense.
It also does not require that a group necessarily actually be a minority. Women technically outnumber men in the overall population so they cannot be considered a minority outside of specifically defined groups.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
If you consider gender in the decision then it IS sexism. Period. You can argue whether it is justified but you are simply substituting one form of sexism for another. It devalues merit in favor of
Discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged, so long as it's in favour of women and minorities.
Pathetic.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You do realize when it comes to hiring it's a coin toss.
I was replying to a comment, so you can take your purity test and shove it up your ass.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Theoretically, affirmative action can accelerate the speed at which you reach a new equilibrium. In terms of a harmonic oscillator, the regular behavior of the system in response to a change in base state (from 1 to 0 in the picture) is overdamped and it can take a long time for the system to reach the new base state. Affirmative action reduces the dampening to an underdamped state, causing the system to arrive at the new equilibrium state (0) much more quickly. i.e. It is sexism, but applied correctly it can speed up the transition to a new steady state equilibrium.
But an underdamped system will overshoot (drops past 0 in the picture). Since we're talking about law here and not a true harmonic oscillator, this can be avoided by putting in guidelines which trigger the end of affirmative action once the new equilibrium state is achieved. In terms of the picture, we raise the dampening back to normal the moment the system reaches 0. There will be a bit of overshoot, but it should quickly settle down.
Unfortunately, I have never seen any affirmative action laws actual specify at what point the affirmative action should cease. So the system will remain underdamped and will overshoot. If it were implemented fairly, at some point it would overshoot so far that affirmative action would call for more hiring of white males, and we'd end up with the oscillations you see in the picture. But I suspect the powers behind it would never allow that to happen, resulting in a permanent skew in hiring practices. Institutionalized sexism and racism - against white males.
Suck it up princess.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
What if her genes have shaped her brain not to be interested ? Several tests on the very youngest subjects already show gender specific preferences in toys. And the same preferences can be seen in monkeys.
And even if society plays a role in shaping people's interests, should you enforce a "correction" by preferring a woman over a man for a position where a woman is less qualified, just because other girls lost interest when they were young ?
And if so, why shouldn't we enforce a correction in the fields of school teachers, nurses and garbage collectors, and every other field where there's an "interest gap" between men and women ?
Good, those costumes aren't the least bit sexist. (And if you can't tell this is sarcasm I suggest you check out the costumes.)
Good job Australia, nice to see you keeping your end up and your standards low.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Understood. No human empathy for wrong gender, wrong race. Thanks for making it so clear what kind of person you are.
Let things be at least somewhat "corrected" for a generation or two, and then we can begin to explore biological biases. Until then the cultural preconceptions are going to drown out most everything else.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
There is a danger to the quick fix. The following things could happen;
1. During the "correction" period few men may be hired. This could create a generation of employees that are mostly women making the discrimination against men very visible. This could create a rift between the male and females in the organization and cause more damage than good.
2. There may be a generation of males that due to past issues, issues they did not cause, may be kept out of industry.
3. When the current male generation retires the pendulum may have swung so far as to create the opposite problem that we have today.
Sometimes moving slowly is a better idea than trying to fix past mistakes by making another mistake.
^^^^ THIS ++
There are dozens and dozens of programs for my daughter to participate in STEM. ZERO for my son. There are programs sponsored by local colleges, and high schools and software companies. Robotics competitions focused on girls.
ZERO for boys.
It is ridiculous at the opportunities cascading down upon my daughter (I am taking full advantage of it). Free, Awesome, comprehensive, ubiquitous.
ZERO for my son.
So anyone saying that girls are being discouraged from doing STEM is ignorant of the current situation in the world
blah
Affirmative action only means that women don't have to work twice but thrice as hard to prove that they weren't just hired because they're a woman. Yes, it may land her a job. But how happy would you be in a job where the immediate assumption is that you suck at it and only got it because of government mandated nepotism, no matter how good you really are?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, presuming that women and men are equally qualified (which was one of the explicitly stated premises of the study), then that would make for a 50-50 mix, would it not?
No it would not because there are more men in the workplace than women overall, largely due to traditional gender roles. Furthermore there is an imbalance in some professions regarding the number of people that enter the profession. More men in engineering and construction. More women in nursing and clerical. Those issues occur FAR earlier than any hiring decision so it is not a 50-50 mix and probably never will be.
It will be rare that a workforce exactly matches the overall population ratio and doing so should never be the explicit goal. The goal is to create an environment where the only meaningful consideration is merit. If you do that well then you'll almost certainly have as diverse a workforce as is currently possible.
Yes, in a magical world populated by unicorns, rational humans, and the ability to accurately evaluate people's qualifications before hiring them, there are potentially better options. But we're stuck in this one.
Nice strawman. We don't even measure the qualifications we know about accurately or uniformly. Give the same resume with gender being the only thing changed and you get a different result? That means we aren't hiring based on merit. We're hiring based on societal pressure or comfort or some other principle.
Your evidence for this being... what?
Let things be at least somewhat "corrected" for a generation or two
Let's start with getting more male teachers. Obviously, all these female teachers have the wrong influence on young girls.
From what I understand, being a male nurse is a mixed bag.
1) You will absolutely get a job. Female nurses will get jobs, too, it's a moderately in-demand profession. But a male nurse gets hired very quickly, because they can lift heavy things, and people.
2) Once hired, you will then get all the jobs lifting heavy things, and people. Also, frequently, assigned to cleaning up the grossest stuff.
3) You have to put up with a work crew that is entirely women. If you don't like discussing The Bachelor, you're going to have to endure some very grating conversations.
4) You will get frequently mistaken for a doctor, while the female doctor you're assisting will be mistaken for a nurse (or, if she's hispanic, for the janitor).
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor
How will you know when it's neutralized and fair ?
So I guess the takeaway is attend a lower-tier school but only take classes from white male faculty to get the most bang for your buck. Got it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
There are tenure-track positions in nursing? I was under the impression it was literally back-breaking work, where most employers have a use-em-and-throw-em-away attitude to employees. I didn't realize it was a cushy desk job with lifetime employment positions that men were dreaming of breaking into somehow.
Sort of funny that we're getting studies that directly contradict each other.
I can't tell you how many morons were quoting that study at me saying "see see women are discriminated against!"... twits.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
3) You have to put up with a work crew that is entirely women. If you don't like discussing The Bachelor, you're going to have to endure some very grating conversations.
Simply file an harassment case.
Affirmative action in the United States counteracts institutional and systemic discrimination against specific groups (often visible) minorities.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
You'll need to define those terms carefully before you have any hope of persuading us.
You'll both probably have to define those terms carefully just to tell if you are talking about the same thing. The common man talking about racism or gentrification is going to be in a totally different discussion and using different definitions of terms than a sociologist talking about racism or gentrification. I imagine the the definitions of such in the terms of laws change from state to state with another set for federal usage.
I can't tell if you're serious or not. Any men I know that went to school for nursing are doing quite well (same is true for women simikarly dedicated).
As for elementary education, men are pretty much garenteed jobs, and there's bonuses to be had at private institutions.
In education it is an explicit attempt to right the past.
I'm in Delaware for context, I understand that things vary.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Yes, this. At some point in the past, women were better represented in the math and sciences. Decades ago, more women were doing technical stuff
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...
And then at some point engineering and technology became a "bro" field and pushed a lot of women out, perhaps because of insecurity with their male dominancy hierarchy or whatever, or increased competition from not so many men going off to die in wars, or whatever.
Women are very useful to have in organizations, though. It's not just an equality thing. There are tangible benefits. Teams with women have better communication.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/aw...
Product teams with women on them can develop better products that appeal to women and serve a wider customer base.
These kinds of things explain why a lot of large successful businesses are working hard to put more girls through STEM education to bring things back up from the 10 - 20% gender ratio where they are now. There aren't that many things you can do to effectively double your customer base. But appealing to women is a pretty big one. So yes, women are more highly sought-after than men in the tech industry. It's nothing to be concerned or ashamed of, it's just a real problem that exists and people are trying to address the issue.
Everyone else can stay and whine in silent desperation on your little male-dominated lonely island if you want. Evolution and the free market will take good care of you! :D
I agree on all points, but not the conclusion. You are saying, essentially, that we should move slowly and thus *definitely* subject more generations of women to the same sexist disadvantages that you're afraid men *might* suffer if we move quickly.
I too fear the pendulum may swing too far, in fact it seems almost inevitable, regardless of what strategy we deploy - such is the nature of social pendulums. But I suspect that a relatively fast correction of existing biases gives us a better chance of then "defanging" the corrective forces while there's still lots of men in power who watched the pendulum swing. If instead we rely primarily on a multi-generational social movement among women finally achieving parity with men... well, let's just say that I know way too many women who would be quite happy to establish a matriarchy instead to be comfortable with that scenario. Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I appreciate your comment. I suspect that everyone is to some extent ideologically driven. I think it matters quite a bit what the ideology is, and what ours is, and how strongly each of us clings to it, if we hope to come to agreement on an issue.
Could you explain more about when you mean by being on the "wrong side of history"? I find it an interesting concept, but I'm not positive what you mean by it.
So telling someone to suck it up is a valid response now.
If I told women to suck it up that they didn't get a job they were qualified for people would jump down my thought to call me a misogynist. Grow up you aren't special and you should be judged based upon your ability to perform, not what sex or skin color you are.
The best explanation I've heard is that Affirmative Action is how to take the world you live in and turn it into the world you want to live in. A world where the politicians, doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc. were actually representative of the population they served.
Yes, Affirmative Action is racist / sexist, because people are racist / sexist. It's ingrained into the human psyche. It can have evolutionary advantages at a certain scale that we've long ago exceeded in civilized society. We'll have more success as a species if we start actively managing our racist / sexist tendencies, and the only way to do that is to acknowledge them and actively counteract them to achieve balance and healthy diversity in the ecosystem.
That's what Affirmative Action is. An acknowledgement that racism / sexism exists, and we need to do something about it to achieve true balance. Anyone who says they are completely neutral to racism / sexism are probably lying to themselves and will find that they do poorly in actual tests like : https://implicit.harvard.edu/i...
Properly done, affirmative action simply means getting more of the unrepresented group to apply.
The problem with this approach is that you are making a potentially unwarranted assumption and, even if that assumption is valid this is the wrong way to fix the problem. You assumption is that fewer of one group apply because they are actively discriminated against. This survey challenges the perceived notion that the reason that there are fewer women in science is due to discrimination and suggests that it might actually be reversed. If the reason that one group is under represented is because that group is not interested then there is not a problem. We do not see ballet schools targeting boys because they are underrepresented because its clear that fewer boys are interested in ballet.
The second problem is that affirmative action reinforces the very prejudice that it is designed to address. By lowering standards for one group over another those that get the positions will, on average, be weaker than most. These people will then be used by some to justify their prejudice. In addition the very fact that affirmative action means being prejudiced can be pointed to as an example of why such a prejudice is "ok".
Affirmative action is nothing more than an attempt at a quick fix to the symptoms of a problem which can only be properly cured through education. It's like taking an aspirin and hoping it will cure something like TB: it might bring temporary quick relief from the symptoms but the underlying disease is just masked and still needs to be cured by antibiotics...and in the meantime the person with TB feels fine and spreads the disease to others.
I am a recently retired white male Professor of Computer Science at a mid-class American university. ..." was always interpreted to mean "we will not hire a white male if there is any other possibility."
In the last 30 years, the three departments I have been part of, in two countries, have _never once_ hired a white male Assistant Professor. The required "we welcome applications from
I used to point out this anecdotal but accurate factoid to bright white male undergraduates who were considering an academic career.
C'est la vie.
Who do you think teaches at nursing schools? You can get a doctorate in nursing.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There are tenure-track positions in programming? I was under the impression it was literally madness inducing* work, where most employers have a use-em-and-throw-em-away attitude to employees, with death marches, burnout and rife age discrimination. I didn't realise it was a cushy 9-5 job with lifetime employment positions that women were dreaming of breaking into somehow.
What, women choose not to work stupidly long hours in an industry that value technical ability above social skills? And that's the fault of men? Well shit, I guess it's also the fault of men that they don't perceive nursing as a desirable career either.
* http://www.businessinsider.com...
If you have 10 tenured positions, and nine of them are men, that Y-factor in hiring the 10th (maybe she will bring something different to the table) can be the deciding factor between two evenly matched candidates and is no more arbitrary or unfair than thinking "This guy reminds me of the one who left, and he worked out well;" which (of course) is part of why the other 9 are men.
The fucking article is highlighting that women are twice as likely to get offered a tenure-track position than men.
The Y-factor is a disadvantage. How the fuck do you come out with some "this is why 90% of them are male" bullshit even in a fucking conversation about women being heavily advantaged over men purely on gender grounds?
Fucking feminists.
How about the fact that females have a higher average than males on language testing? Or that males beat females on spatial acuity tests?
While these statements are accurate, you're drawing improper conclusions that the studies themselves did not.
There are many upbringing differences between the average male and female, that when brought into parity remove the full standard deviation in spatial intelligence quotient, for example. Video games are a big factor. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the statistical difference is in any way physiological.
I do feel bad for men who are prevented by gender stereotypes from being first grade teachers or head nurses, but lets be honest, these are paraprofessional jobs that were once semi-reserved for women because men had a monopoly on the real money and prestige jobs of professor or doctor. Society can worry about the JV teams later.
What about the men struggling to get into jobs such as professor or doctor now? Just that it's a pretty shitty time to be a 20 year old man: even if you graduate without suffering a false rape allegation you're going to be fighting for jobs against better educated women who are given funding and additional training then given greater chance of a job even if you can match their qualifications.
Sexism is an issue, but more sexism of a different kind is not the answer. Disadvantaging men that are trying to enter STEM professions leaves them nothing but the shitty jobs, in which they're already heavily over-represented, and even if feminists think that's perfectly fine I think the OP is entirely correct to call them out on it.
Murse here.
There is the start of whispering campaign against male nurses for risk of sexual impropriety. There are certain positions men are forbidden from bidding on under the auspices of "patient sensitivity" which don't seem to apply to people preferring a male nurse (Muslims, Hispanics). Those people need get a grip and join the 21st century. It's unspoken that no men are allowed on oby/gyn or peds unless you are a women or flammingly gay. Any "sensitive" procedures should have a female present just in case. Everything else you mention sounds about right.
Oh, and you will have to walk a fine line of not saying anything that could be misconstrued as harassment and appearing to be gay for thinking it is improper to date anyone at work. Of course being a fly on the wall to your female colleagues conversations is enough to put you off from dating forever.
On the plus side, there is a camaraderie with working with women that is absent from working with men (frequent potlucks, that sort of thing) and for the most part the glass escalator doesn't exist except in certain, traditionally female areas.
What the fuck? How about no, we don't spend two generations fucking over men purely because they happen to have a cock from birth.
It's a similar story in almost any government agency these days. I work in a state agency where it's almost impossible to get promoted if you're a white male. At this point there are only four white males on an Executive Management Team of 16 people. And three of those four are only there because they're old-timers who've been here for 30+ years. When they retire soon, you can bet that white males won't be replacing them. It's a similar situation at other agencies. Last year we didn't send a single male employee to management training. All six (coveted) spots were awarded to females.
And this is in a Republican red state, mind you.
Now, tell *ME* about all my white male privilege. Tell me all about it when I go up for a promotion knowing that I have zero chance. Tell me about it when I sit on a interview panel and the white guy applying doesn't stand a chance unless he's demonstrably at least twice as qualified as any minority or female candidates. Yeah, I'm just BASKING in all that privilege.
Actually if he had a mangina he would have been hired...
By all means, I want to see the giant mangina who brings the lawsuit because "White men are being discriminated against".
I bet he looks something like this:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oe9uK9Q...
Mangina ? Such hate speech
From the summary: "An anonymous reader links to the study itself."
SLASHDOT - where the summary links are so bad that we only provide good links under cloak of anonymity.
Oh btw you'll have to pardon me if I don't look at your link. God only knows what an angry lefty would think is an appropriate response to being in the wrong.
I think you're a complete cunt.
How are we subjecting any women to a sexist disadvantage if we grant them equal education, equal opportunities, equal choices?
What the fuck are you talking about disadvantages men *might* suffer when men are already more likely to commit suicide, more likely to die in the workplace, have lower life expectancy, work longer hours, are more likely to have mental health issues, are more likely to be homeless, are treated far far worse by the family and criminal court systems?
Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
If you're a man aged 30 or under you're already suffering from inferior treatment by society as a whole. Too fucking late.
Some countries have taken a start: mandatory paternity leave of the same duration as maternity leave. Women may still be less likely to return than men, but it's a step in the right direction, and gives men a chance to be more immersed in their child's early development as well.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Current UK law : You may not discriminate against a job applicant on the grounds of gender (unless they're a man).
Your view of what constitutes a reasonable law : You must discriminate against a job applicant if they're a man.
How about, fuck off.
Huh? I always thought I was a man. *checks* I'm so confused now...
So we'll see the opposite in nursing schools?
No? You must be full of shit.
Actually yes
And there should be (assuming male dominated professions have similar corrections).
The job of a faculty member is to do research and teach, having a novel perspective is a huge benefit for both.
An easy way to get a novel perspective is different life experiences, this means different races, cultures, and gender.
So if you have two otherwise equal candidates of different genders then your organization will be best served by selecting the under-represented gender.
I stole this Sig
Tenure is rapidly going away, partially as more universities are replacing regular faculty with adjunct faculty and using the availability of the latter as justification for worse treatment of the former. Go look at the closest 4-year school to where you live and see how many tenure-track STEM openings they have. Then look this summer to see how many openings they have for adjuncts.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Seriously, I'd love to hear suggestions. I've got a niece in the first grade, brilliant little girl...
I hear you. Best current evidence is that the most influential thing to help girls find their way is to have a good role model. I heard about a study where the places that have the largest proportion of girls going into STEM is in areas like North Carolina's Research Triangle where there are a lot of good female role models working in the fields. Make sure she knows it is a real option. A good friend of my wife's is a doctor with young girls and she's made sure they know that such things are available to them and the kids are actually quite enthusiastic about science. (smart kids too so that helps)
I do a lot of coaching of high school age kids. One generalism I've noticed is that in sports boys need to play well to feel good about themselves. Girls are often the reverse. They seem to need to feel good about themselves to play well. No idea why that is but it seems to be frequently true. Maybe that might help you in some way. Good luck!
that we should move slowly and thus *definitely* subject more generations of women to the same sexist disadvantages that you're afraid men *might* suffer if we move quickly.
The current men entering the workforce are definitely suffering sexist disadvantages. There is a continuum between hiring all men and hiring all women. We just need to find the happy medium between the two. I think that hiring women two for one is too far. Sure there should be some bias but lets not go too far.
Trying to fix historic issues in one generation is not reasonable.
I too fear the pendulum may swing too far, in fact it seems almost inevitable
How far the pendulum swings is based on how fast it swings. Swing too fast and it will go too far.
well, let's just say that I know way too many women who would be quite happy to establish a matriarchy instead to be comfortable with that scenario.
There is a good possibility that moving too fast will itself establish a matriarchy.
Oversimplified - give them equality, or they will quite likely take superiority.
You are not asking for that. You are asking for superiority in hiring for an undetermined period to bring overall equality. There are no safeguards to prevent the equality from becoming female superiority. Who says when there is enough equality?
Why should the men entering the workforce be penalized for things they have no control over.
Oh no doubt! A generation of restless, unemployed, discriminated-against, angry young men will be very beneficial to society. Just think what they will accomplish in their free time! The lessons they will learn! One very important lesson is that women should do all the work, leaving them to their entertainment. Hmm I wonder what forms of entertainment they will engage in? Idle hands are the mother of invention, isn't that how the proverb goes? Wait, no it was idle hands are next to godliness. No that isn't it either. It doesn't matter, history is for losers anyway. The important thing is that testosterone is well known as a great cure for resentment, especially when combined with poor education and a lack of opportunity. Our grand social experiment was such a success with minorities, it is now time to implement it at all levels of society.
Do you remember #shirtgate and how the poor women weren't following science degrees because of the constant workplace sexism?
Just a thought. You could get an honest job?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There is a way to quash sexism and discrimination in most, if not all, walks of life. But people have to cooperate and throw away their own assumptions. Gender/Sex, Skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, creed, religious/irreligious, etc none of it matters. Those are all things that must be IGNORED. If you can do the job, then let's move on to hiring for another position. If you can't, then someone else has to be hired. The more you pay attention to such immaterial details, the more power and value they will hold simply because people believe they matter.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
I work at a hospital. I hear nurses. This is what they talk about. *shrug*
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Did you read you link?
It doesn't say what you think it says. Not surprising. It's deliberately unclear, like most social science.
Men in traditional woman jobs were rated second highest of categories. The highest rated category was (wait for it) women in traditional woman jobs.
Basically it says the opposite of what you claim it says.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That seems to be the premise behind every single "There aren't enough female programmers, engineers, etc.." post that pops up here on Slashdot every couple of weeks.
As others have said, none of that is really true anymore. Going on what someone else said, I would point out that in my university (where I am pursuing a degree in Electrical/Electronic Engineering as a male) the only EE related clubs are those focused around women. Having said that, EE classes at a small university are a sausage fest. Larger universities in my experience at least have a few, and none of us students discourage the women from participating.
I think it's time we face it, women just don't give as much of a shit about the same things men do. We have different interests as a general rule. And for the record, if you're being discouraged from pursuing something that truly interests you, that's a problem for anyone, not just women.
This article would explain my situation, however, while I was working as a co-op at an engineering company. I worked with 3 different female EE degrees that were all part of my department. Knowing through experience how few women there are in EE classes, I never understood why they made up nearly half of our team.
Spatial acuity differences were observed before video games existed.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Understood. No human empathy for wrong gender, wrong race. Thanks for making it so clear what kind of person you are.
The individual is not in the lexicon of the liberal. Only groups can know harm or oppression
You are correct - there are never any guarantees. But I think you're taking the pendulum metaphor a little to literally - backlash to social change is stronger the faster it happens.
>Why should the men entering the workforce be penalized for things they have no control over.
Why should women?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Very interesting post. I am guessing you are hiring for a STEM type professor? While I think there is some level of truth to the statement that someone who is any kind of minority in a field is more likely to still be there because they love the subject, one would expect then for the same logic to apply to male candidates in female dominated fields, but it seems like it doesn't according to the data. Men may brag more, but I understand research shows women are better communicators on average and thus in theory better able to express their accomplishments. Also, if there are more men over all being hired, and a fairly small number of washouts, it is more likely to randomly happen to a male. Finally, I also have not hired people who I thought were too qualified (though rarely), but the gender of the person wasn't relevant. I think the danger is that it is very easy to make an apparently self consistent reason for any kind of bias you like, but hard data ought force us to at least question our assumptions however well meant.
Tell that to the feminists.
On subjects like this, the NYT is no better..
Extensive first-hand witness.
How is excluding someone from a job based solely on gender not sexism?
That's easy, it's down to the current attempt to redefine "sexism" to mean ONLY "systemic sexism" or "discrimination + oppression". Therefore by that definition it's IMPOSSIBLE to be sexist against men, since they hold the "power" and aren't "oppressed".
Really? Despite the title of this article?
Even if it was the easiest thing in the world, causing systemic discrimination under the guise of fighting it is never justified. After all, why would you want to drag someone else down instead of helping yourself up (or others to help themselves)? The latter is what a meritocracy encourages, and affirmative action destroys the value of merit in every organization it infects, making the supposedly irrelevant traits the most important selection criteria as a matter of policy.
That said, it's getting harder to be anyone in this modern world. State enforced castes don't do anything but let it have the power to pick winners and losers, causing resentment on all sides. The interesting thing will be whether cornell decides to do anything about the problem it found...or if its faculty even considers it to be a problem at all.
What would you say to someone who said this to a woman?
That's ~51% at birth. It doesn't stay that way for all that long, due to another factor that hasn't been completely explained: women tend to live a bit longer than men do. This phenomenon spent most of history being masked by the fact that childbirth is much more dangerous in humans than in most species: until around the turn of the 20th century, it was the #1 cause of death among women in most cultures, and that skewed female life expectancy much lower than today. In the modern developed world, childbirth is a much safer process; it's still not completely devoid of dangers, but as it has receded as a killer of women, their life expectancy has not only caught up to men's but actually eclipsed it. There are places in the developing world where this process hasn't yet completed, but even there we can see improvements along similar lines.
The end result is that the population spends most of the human lifespan close to 50/50. At the high end of the age range it skews female, though this doesn't become significant until quite late in life.
I don't think I dare look at your link right now, but your question has been answered. To quote from that Wikipedia article: "The lead plaintiff was Frank Ricci, who had been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. ... Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks onto audiotapes." (Emphasis mine.)
Make whatever noises you like: just because a person is part of the privileged class in the two most visible categories of discrimination (race & gender) doesn't exclude them from being a member of any other legally protected class.
Do you like Japanese imports?
more accurate than media matters or MSNBC
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
We've learned from progressives that anytime the results are skewed relative to the the population someone is getting screwed.
I fully expect this divergence to be 100% acceptable to the left because "traditional victims" are coming out ahead and "unprosecuted rapists" are rightfully being denied their privilege.
[citation needed]
Should citation be provided, the onus is on you to decide what it was before the advent of video games that led to the dichotomy. I can certainly come up with many solid guesses that we could pursue.
However, the fact remains, that with a modern population, the disparity does not exist where today's methods of a young male honing his spatial acuity are also practiced by a female.
Citation needed yourself. You are just making things up.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am Hispanic guy living in Latin America. Having read Slashdot for ten years, it does not cease to amuse me the fact that most members of the community are very left-wing and their support for left-wing ideas is strong. In spite of being mostly males, mostly straight, mostly bright and mostly whites.
It's like watching Jews cheering Nazism. I don't get it, maybe because you have to be American to understand this self-sabotage.
If "affirmative action" is implemented, who do you think it's going to be the candidate with better qualifications that does not get the job, because there is a woman, a minority or a gay? It's going to be you. (The same with college admissions).
If more civil servants are hired or there is a new program to help "minorities", who is going to pay for them? The woman who is living off welfare and have three kids from different fathers. No, you are going to pay.
If there is a divorce, who is going to lose half his salary and lose his kids forever? The wife? No, you.
Maybe stories like this will awake you. But maybe not. You were brainwashed very well by your teachers and professors since the kindergarten. Now, go back to work and to slave yourselves, that there is a lot of unproductive people to feed.
As I said, it's amusing. American people are strange.
During periods of social change where there is a clear divide between groups over an issue, the side that ultimately loses is said to have been on the "wrong side of history". People who supported segregation, for example, would have been on the "wrong side of history" as segregation is no longer socially acceptable and few can image that there would have ever been a debate! A more modern example would be gay rights. While it's not over yet, it's pretty clear which side will ultimately "win" and which side will fall on the "wrong side of history".
On women's equality, I expect the outcome to ultimately fall in favor of the feminists. My predictions may be a bit premature, but that's what I expect none-the-less.
Required reading for internet skeptics
True. However the same cannot be said for the scientists doing the research, or the implications they draw from their conclusions. For a glaring example, for many decades it was believed through many studies that it was primarily male apes that pursued the females. Well after the sexual revolution it was realized that the females were at least as active in seeking the attention of their desired males, and the evidence was clearly evident in videos from the earlier studies that reached the opposite conclusion.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Must I, or are you just dodging?
You see, I asked you for yours, because upon googling, I could find no such study information.
Now, if you google "gender differences in spatial intelligence", you're going to have quite a different result. The consensus is moving toward spatial ability gender differences being a matter of nurture, not nature. Determined by culture, not sex organs.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://pss.sagepub.com/content...
Wikipedia has probably the most comprehensive list of scientific citations on the topic, with the debunkings of decades-old studies that failed to account for even a modicum of non-physiological possibilities. You should read up. Learn something new.
Ultimately, though, given just how much information there is on the topic, I'm pretty sure you're playing off of some pre-conceived cultural leanings.
First, I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was providing an example of the work culture in nursing, in the context of someone referencing a "glass escalator" for male nurses, as if it's a super-easy profession for them to slip in to.
If I told you that engineering is super-easy for women to get ahead in, because (as this study suggests) a female engineer would have no problem getting a job, you'd call me naive, would you not? After all, there was a story on /. in the last 48 hours chiding Microsoft for having poor diversity numbers. This is a common refrain in tech reporting. "Only 6% of workers at MegaTechCorp are $MINORITY_TYPE." So naturally if you've got an equally talented white man and black woman applying for the job, give the job to the black woman. That's two diversity boxes checked off! She on paper she should get the job more easily.
However, a black woman will probably tell you it's not so easy, because "culture" and "glass ceiling." When you are the minority member of any group, as nice and friendly (and oblivious) as that group is, you never fit in. The majority has a culture different from yours. "Not fitting in" has all sorts of ramifications for any social endeavor, especially career advancement. It's a lot easier to get the promotion, or to get your ideas recognized and advanced, to get your project idea approved, when you fit in, people like you and they listen to you (because they are like you).
So some people respond by avoiding places where they don't feel like they fit in. This is the primary "why there aren't girls in tech" explanation. There was a story on /. a few months back about a study where the psychologists decorated a room in stereotypically geeky male tech-guy stuff, like Star Trek posters, and then gave presentations about tech careers to men and women. Then repeated the experiment without the decoration. And women polled afterwards were less likely to be interested in tech careers when they were surrounded by the Star Trek stuff that was, perhaps, not as a big a part of their culture. Not entirely surprising, is it? It would be harder to advance (or simply feel satisfied) in a place where the culture does not include you. When you're on a team of 10 software developers and during the minutes waiting for the weekly scrum to start the 9 white geeky guys are talking about Grand Theft Auto V, the Indian girl who doesn't play video games has little shot at being included in the camaraderie. It is less likely her ideas will be considered as opposed to the guy with the best theory about where the jet pack is really hidden.
Or, you can assimilate. Which changes you in ways you may not like. I read an article written by a black woman in tech who had an identity crisis after a few years in the industry, because she realized she no longer recognized herself. She wanted to fit in, so she wound up, mostly subconsciously, changing the things she liked, the things she said, the way she spoke and the way she acted to fit in with her white male coworkers. But she should have it made! Black and female! Easy hire! But then there is the whole "culture" and "advancement" thing.
My own limited experience is as the only white guy on a team of 6 Indians at a data warehousing consulting gig. I didn't have much to contribute to the discussions about cricket (although I really enjoyed learning). And I didn't mind that the majority of our team lunches were at an Indian restaurant, because I love Indian food. And the really funny part is that my wife and I cook very, very, very hot food, and my coworkers couldn't believe I could eat spicier food than they could without sweating. However, that was short term and I wasn't competing with those guys for advancement.
I digress. I was talking about culture. And cultural differences will absolutely impact your career prospects. As a male nurse, you will never fit in. The promotion to head nurse will almost always go to a female nurse, as she is most likely to have the "best relati
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Affirmative action for women is not the same as sexism; it is a corrective for sexism.
In a perfect world, affirmative action would exist only to counteract systemic bias (individual biases having already been eradicated).
The world is not perfect.
Affirmative action may be a counterbalance to systemic bias, or it may be thinly-disguised bigotry.
but we actually end up with 2 institutions who discriminate based on sex
A generation ago, that would actually have been progress of sorts.
Today we can do better.
So telling someone to suck it up is a valid response now.
If I told women to suck it up that they didn't get a job they were qualified for people would jump down my thought to call me a misogynist. Grow up you aren't special and you should be judged based upon your ability to perform, not what sex or skin color you are.
The "system" has been discriminating against women for a long, long time. So now people are doing something about it and assholes like you get in the way and play the victim.
Well fuck you, and fuck your attitude.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
This story included just enough SJW dog-whistles (like "this is a propitious time for women beginning careers in academic science" and "What we found shocked us") to make the SJWs point to it, without realizing it actually demolishes them.
Nice explanation, thanks for taking the time.
I got the sense that you were implying that the right side of history == the more moral position. Is that where you were going with that?
Did you read you link?
It doesn't say what you think it says. Not surprising. It's deliberately unclear, like most social science.
Men in traditional woman jobs were rated second highest of categories. The highest rated category was (wait for it) women in traditional woman jobs.
Basically it says the opposite of what you claim it says.
Sorry, I thought the link was talking about the professional effect rather than perception.
This paper suggest an actual professional advantage for male nurses though the abstract doesn't mention in comparison to what. There's various other sites talking about the effect but that's the only peer reviewed study I saw.
I stole this Sig
Not all that many more. NPR misrepresents the situation. For as long as the US Department of Labor has kept records, men have been prevalent in computing.
Engineering has been male dominated throughout history.
The whole "men pushed women out" narrative doesn't hold water.
lol personal attacks vs. evidence... theres a winner drywolf....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If you see two equal candidates in terms of technical credentials but you know one can bring a perspective you perceive to be weakly represented in the field I don't find it unexpected that people might reach for that rare candidate. We are not told what the female census was of these institutions nor what the typical application profile looks like. Sorry I can't get all torn up over this - if we see the same thing once there is some balance in the ranks and all capable girls have role models to encourage them to pursue these fields if they have the talent and inclination to try I will change my view.
Then why did you bring them up in a discussion about tenured professors?
Fitting in is the least of it. She's entering a world where the entire worldview has been co-opted by the desires of young men. It's why when there was a study of 250 evaluations, fully three-quarters referenced the woman's personality, using words like "abrasive" and "demanding" where only two referenced a man's personality. Because a woman coming to work in tech is expected to be "one of the guys" or will be seen as a "frigid bitch" (one of the terms used in an evaluation).
No, it's not just fitting in at the lunch room or around the water cooling. It's dealing with structural exclusion. And judging from the butthurt expressed in a lot of the comments here whenever the topic comes up, I don't see how anyone can honestly say there is no structural exclusion.
And the worst part, is the structural exclusion is to the detriment of the company or organization. A different study from 2013 showed that diverse workplaces make for more profitable companies and productive organizations. And that friend, is the reason companies are pushing for more diversity. It's not about "social justice" or feminism or whatever cockamamie conspiracy is cooked up in the heads of mens' rights advocates. It's dollars and cents. Diversity is good business.
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hadn't considered that, though I can see how that's seemingly inescapable.
Required reading for internet skeptics
That reflects more on you and the company you keep, because it hasn't been true at any of the places I have worked.
But I think you're taking the pendulum metaphor a little to literally - backlash to social change is stronger the faster it happens.
I thought about that but the more I thought the more I realized the pendulum analogy fits. For example say now the ration of men to women is 80/20. That is bad and needs to be fixed. Say in the next generation the hiring is 34/66. While both generations are around the ratio will be 57/43. It looks like it is going in the right direction. Now the first generation retires and we have a 33/66 ratio. The pendulum has now sung too far because they tried to change the ratio too fast.
Why should women?
I never said they should. Men and women should be equally considered based on qualifications and not gender. Men entering the workforce should not be made to suffer for their fathers' sins. Discriminating against men is just as bad as discriminating against women.
On one hand preference toward men is wrong. On the other hand preference toward women to make up for past preference toward men is right. I can not reconcile those to statements. Taken together those statements sound hypocritical to me.
Not all that many more. NPR misrepresents the situation. For as long as the US Department of Labor has kept records, men have been prevalent in computing.
Engineering has been male dominated throughout history.
The whole "men pushed women out" narrative doesn't hold water.
It may surprise you that in the days before the electronic computer, the word "computer" often referred to a human operator that performed calculations. Most of them were women.
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...
The workforce has always been pretty hostile to women, but it wasn't always that way. China and Russia have plenty of women engineers. My Soviet-raised wife always scoffs at these SJW threads because it simply wasn't a problem where she grew up. But for some reason, it's a thing that happens in Western countries.
http://www.paristechreview.com...
There are probably several societal and cultural factors that have been discouraging women from tech fields, but guys being insufferable dicks is the only one I really have personally witnessed. For my part, I just find smart chicks hawt and would prefer working with more women instead of hanging out with a gaggle of dudes all day long.
The uniforms aren't significantly more revealing than the uniforms of some track and field events, or beach volley ball.
And don't blame Australia... Americans have a league too. Not sure who came first though.
This signature is false.
Yes. It's sexist because women are discouraged from pursuing it.
Extraordinary claim. Citation needed.
It's sexist because women are ostracised if they do.
Another extraordinary claim. Another citation needed.
If I see a woman with a particularly impressive qualification, I would hire her over a man with the same qualification, because I know that the woman had to be better than the man to get it.
You do realise that you are talking about a generation that has been brought up with the mentality of "You can do whatever you want to"? The young women who are choosing not to go into $FIELD have been told their entire lives that they can do whatever they want to. Society has been pushing the gurl powah shlock since the 80's.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
if society has systematically shaped her expectations and preferences from the day she was conceived? Yes.
That's quite a big "IF"; have you any evidence that this is actually the case?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Thanks, have a nice day :)
http://www.educa.net/curso/cre...
Thanks, have a nice day :)
http://www.educa.net/curso/cur...
Concluding that I'm a sexist pig because I'm aware of the impact of everyday sexism is a bit of a non-sequitur.
Then why did you bring them up in a discussion about tenured professors?
I didn't. Someone else brought up the exclusion of males from other professions, like nursing, and someone else said that's bullshit because males in female-dominated professions like nursing will experience a "glass escalator." Only after that did I chime in with the observation that male nurses will not experience a glass escalator because they will not fit in with the work culture.
No, it's not just fitting in at the lunch room or around the water cooling. It's dealing with structural exclusion
I'd say these are two sides of the same coin, and grow together in a symbiotic relationship. "All of us standing around the water cooler like Star Trek and paintball, so we're going to hang up Star Trek posters in the break room and organize a company paintball tournament." There is now a structure that filters entrants to that work force, and those that pass the filter will reinforce the established workplace culture.
This, however, is not exclusive to evil men in tech. It is human nature. You cannot convincingly argue that men are not "structurally excluded" from, say, elementary education. Despite the fact that children learn better from teachers who are like them (see the story on /. about diversity in teaching from the past day or two). So, the exclusion of men from elementary education hurts schools in their mission to educate boys as well as girls. But pointing this out makes you a mens' rights conspiracy kook.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
No. The right side of history is the side that wins. Just because we look at some of the victories as being morally right doesnt mean every victory is morally right.
You are assuming a lack of cultural inertia. Yes, preferentially hiring women for a while would result in a brief surge of female majority in the middle rungs of the institution a few decades down the line - whether that would translate into a surge at the top remains to be seen - it certainly hasn't so far, the glass ceiling remains largely intact.
I'm not saying preference towards women is right, I'm saying that, in the face of the inertia behind centuries of institutionalized sexism, it's arguably less wrong than allowing another several generation of women to grow up in a world that's severely stacked against them.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Culture systematically shapes our perception of damned near everything - hell, you probably find the though of shitting in the street or eating human flesh disgusting - you think there's anything *natural* about either of those taboos? Hardly. The onus of evidence lies on you to show that it does not.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You are assuming a lack of cultural inertia.
Inertia meaning things at rest tend to stay at rest and things in motion tend to stay in motion.
Yes, preferentially hiring women for a while would result in a brief surge of female majority in the middle rungs of the institution a few decades
Who is to say that it will be brief? Who is to say that the preferential treatment for women will not last a few decades and when the female majority get to middle/upper management they do not continue the discrimination?
it's arguably less wrong than allowing another several generation of women to grow up in a world that's severely stacked against them.
In this instance the world is not currently stacked against them. According to the article it is actually stacked with them. Equality in hiring is even less wrong that using discrimination to make up for past errors.
You left out the part about it being fairly easy to lose your nursing license if you screw up. If I screw up, I might be fired, but I can apply for software development jobs at other places. If my sister-in-law screwed up, she had a serious chance of not being able to apply for a nursing job anywhere.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sexual harassment has certain legal meanings. Having the rest of the staff discuss a subject you're uninterested in, whether it's The Bachelor or football, isn't one of them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Excluding somebody from a job based on gender is sexism (or some other ism). Choosing a job candidate on the basis of all available information, including gender, isn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Concluding that if you observe a lot of sexism around you, you must be surrounded by sexists, however, is a valid conclusion.
And the fact that you don't change the company you keep and surround yourself with different people is a reflection on you and your preferences.
Culture systematically shapes our perception of damned near everything - hell, you probably find the though of shitting in the street or eating human flesh disgusting - you think there's anything *natural* about either of those taboos? Hardly. The onus of evidence lies on you to show that it does not.
Ah. The creationist argument - prove a negative. Well Done!
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
So far it's been about fifty-fifty. The people that work for the same company as me, they're usually ok, that's why I've been here so long, and we have a lot of excellent women including in senior positions. It's the clients and their contractors that I've mostly noticed the problem most with. I work on short to medium term projects, usually a year or two, sometimes as little as 6 months, so I see a lot of different environments and I don't have the luxury of judging them beforehand and choosing based on that judgement. And in previous companies, when it's been people in the company I've worked for, well, yes I put up with it because I needed the paycheque.
Expressing any opinion in support of "affirmative action" is trolling, apparently. Now I don't mind if you disagree with me, it's a thorny subject and is definitely wide open for debate, but modding me as a troll is just not cricket. I'm all discussed-out on the actual issue elsewhere, I'm just talking about abuse of moderation here. Hopefuly it gets fixed in meta, but I've not seen the option to metamod for years, is it still even a thing?
And I wasn't kidding when I said I haven't seen any significant sexism (or homophobia for that matter) in the several decades I have been in the tech industry, neither among developers nor among management or customers.
As I was saying: your experience is specific to your environment: the companies you work for, the work you do, and the country you live in. Yes, sexism, racism, and homophobia are much more common in Europe and in particular among European companies, which is one reason I left Europe for the US. Your experience has no relevance to affirmative action in the US tech industry or US academia, and for you to comment on the situation in the US based on your (depressing) experience in Europe is irresponsible.
A good publication record is one where a person hasn't necessarly published a huge number of papers, but where their publications are in the respected venues that have low acceptance rates and are known to accept only good work.